Bernard Healey – RI Future

Pope_Francis_in_March_2013 — **Steve Ahlquist** wants to cover **Pope Francis**

Despite having more Roman Catholics than any other state in the country, no Pope has ever visited Rhode Island. In September Pope Francis will be the fourth Pope to visit the United States in what will be the tenth papal visit to our shores.

The first Pope to visit the United States, or even the Western Hemisphere, was Paul VI in 1965. He limited his visit to New York. He met with President Lyndon Johnson, spoke before the United Nations, held a mass at Yankee Stadium and visited the New York World’s Fair, cramming a lot into a 14 hour visit.

Pope John Paul II , 14 years later, made his first of seven visits to the United States. This Pope visited Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, Des Moines, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Miami, Columbia, New Orleans, San Antonio, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Denver, Newark, Brooklyn, Baltimore and St. Louis over 20 years of visits.

Benedict XVI was the last Pope to visit the United States, arriving in Washington and visiting New York in 2008.

In Rhode Island, Catholics make up about 44 percent of the population, the highest in the nation. But if Rhode Island Catholics want to catch a glimpse of their spiritual leader, they need to travel to where he is. That’s why the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence is leading a pilgrimage of 400 faithful to Philadelphia, where the Pope is speaking before the World Meeting of Families.

Pope Francis, while being true to his predecessors on the subjects of reproductive rights and homosexuality, (he’s against both) has nonetheless upset conservative Catholics in the United States with his stance on the environment and capitalism (which he has compared to “the devil’s dung.”)

Quoted in Politico, Sam Clovis, a Catholic and political activist who’s run for US Senate and state treasurer in Iowa said, “In northwest Iowa, we are discussing this a great deal, and sometimes it’s hard for us to reconcile the pronouncements we read from the Holy Father with our conservative principles.”

Meanwhile, Republican Catholics running for president, such as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum are all trying to differentiate between what their Catholic faith compels them to believe and what are merely the opinions of Pope Francis. The same politicians who once said to Catholics in support of LGBTQ and reproductive rights that such positions were impossible to square with true Catholicism are now facing the same criticism themselves on the issues of economic and environmental justice.

Locally, we are seeing similar reactions to Pope Francis. Conservative Catholic blogger Justin Katz wrote a piece last month for the ProJo in which he asked, “What’s the deal with Pope Francis?” Katz is examining Catholic theology as a way of navigating the difficult questions Francis poses to conservative Catholics.

Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence Diocese has publicly proclaimed his disappointment with Pope Francis, saying “…he hasn’t, at least that I’m aware of, said much about unborn children, about abortion, and many people have noticed that.” Tobin, who publicly switched his political party affiliation from Democrat to Republican, has received a fair amount of criticism for this and other remarks about his boss.

Even Bernard Healey, the Catholic priest who lobbies the RI General Assembly on behalf of the Providence Catholic Diocese, has dinged Pope Francis, beginning testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 25th with a guilty smile, saying, “I would quote Pope Francis, who is widely quoted in the media. You probably missed this quote, they normally miss the ones that I agree with,” implying that he disagrees with much of what Pope Francis has been saying.

Pope_Francis_among_the_people_at_St._Peter's_Square_-_12_May_2013 — Pope Francis

Nationally, 54 percent of Catholics support same-sex marriage. 66 percent think abortion is at least sometimes justified. 69 percent support contraception. Given such numbers, it seems the Catholic Church is out of step with American Catholics on the political left as well as the right.

Yet here in Rhode Island the Catholic Church exerts formidable political power. The governor, speaker of the House and Senate president are all at least nominally Catholic, as are many members of the General Assembly. Tobin has his own part time lobbyist working our part time legislature. Politically speaking, the Roman Catholic Church is a power player here in Rhode Island and that means that in order to understand our state, we have to understand the dynamics of political Catholicism.

And to do that, you have to understand the Pope.

Since Pope Francis isn’t coming to Rhode Island, RI Future is going to the Pope. To do that, we’re running a GoFundMe campaign to secure the $1000 I’ll need to cover train travel, food, lodging and other expenses. Over the course of five days, from September 23-27, I’ll be in Washington DC, New York City and Philadelphia, covering the Pope’s visit in my unique way.

This will be very different coverage. Readers of this blog know that I am an outspoken atheist, progressive and democratic socialist. I won’t just be covering the Pope, I’ll be covering the people I meet. There will be protesters, critics and supporters. I’ve never done anything like this before, so I expect my coverage to be unlike anything I’ve done before as well.

Consider donating, and let’s see what I can pull off.

Language added to the Rhode Island 2016 budget by Representative Raymond Gallison before passage somewhat balanced the last minute addition of extreme anti-abortion language submitted by Governor Gina Raimondo.

The new language added to article 18 reads:

(e) Health plans that offer a plan variation that excludes coverage for abortion services as 31 defined in 45 CFR 156.280(d)(i) for a religious exemption variation in the small group market 32 shall treat such a plan as a separate plan offering with a corresponding rate.

Except for religious Employers (as defined in Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code), employers selecting a plan under this religious exemption subsection may not designate it as the single plan for employees, but shall offer their employees full-choice of small employer plans on the exchange, using the employer-selected plan as the base plan for coverage. The employer is not responsible for payment that exceeds that designated for the employer-selected plan.

An employer who elects a religious exemption variation shall provide written notice to prospective enrollees prior to enrollment that the plan excludes coverage for abortion services as defined in 45 CFR 156.280(d)(1). The carrier must include notice that the plan excludes coverage for abortion services as part of the Summary of benefits and Coverage required by 42 U.S.C. 300g-15.

Signs of a behind the scenes compromise were apparent based on the odd assortment of representatives who rose to second the amendment, including Rep Edie Ajello, well known for her advocacy of reproductive rights, and Rep Arthur Corvese, well known for publicly and repeatedly referring to legalized abortion as a “culture of death.”

What does the new language mean? At bottom, any non-religious employer, as defined by the IRS, that elects to not include abortion coverage in their employee health plan, must allow employees to opt out of the company plan, and select any other plan, paying any additional costs out of pocket.

Rhode Island is now the first state to build language into the law that protects those who want a health care plan that provides abortion coverage.

Under Federal law, employees must be notified when their plan covers abortion. It does not require, as Rhode Island will under this new language, that employees be notified when they do not have abortion coverage. The language passed last night mandates that employees be told that the chosen plan does not cover abortion before they enroll, and that the lack of abortion coverage is confirmed after enrollment.

Ultimately, the notification requirement is similar to language concerning religious employers who choose not to cover contraception coverage as part of their health plans otherwise mandated by state or federal law.

There is a problem for employees inherent in this language. If my employer doesn’t want to cover abortion due to religious objections, and I decide to opt out of the plan chosen by my company, my employer will know of my objection, and may act in a discriminatory way against me because of my beliefs. I shouldn’t have to worry about job security or job advancement because of my decisions regarding reproductive health care for my family and me. Medical coverage, including reproductive services, are a private matter. How can that privacy be maintained under this provision?

Before the passage of the budget, Barth Bracy, executive director of RI Right to Life told me that he and Bernard Healey, State House lobbyist for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, were present to track the progress of the anti-abortion language the Governor inserted. Bracy told me that the language was the result of an agreement made in the wake of Doe v. Burwell, in which an anonymous man sued the state because there were no plans on the exchange that did not cover abortion.

ProJo reporter Richard Salit confirmed this when he wrote that “The lawsuit brought against Rhode Island was withdrawn in May when a Christian legal group said it had been assured that Rhode Island would begin offering multiple plans for abortion foes in 2016. According to HealthSource RI, the state Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner has required that in 2016 insurers offer a choice for abortion foes in every “metal” level (bronze, silver, gold and platinum) that they offer traditional health plans.”

This does not answer the question as to why Rhode Island did not simply require the addition of one plan to not cover abortion, as is required by federal law by 2017. It also does not answer why the amendment came from Governor Raimondo’s office, instead of being introduced as a bill that could be debated and publicly commented on. Had this democratic and open process been followed, the end result may have been more satisfying to all parties.

Despite this large concession to abortion foes, they were still unhappy with the newly added language. A source confided to me that Bracy, Healey and Representative John DeSimone were railing against the compromise language during last minute negotiations.

This makes me wonder if the RI Right to Life and the Providence Roman Catholic Diocese will begin looking for a non-religious employer to bring a Hobby Lobby like lawsuit against HealthSource RI under the state level RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act.) There is little difference between Rhode Island’s RFRA and the federal version the Supreme Court based their Hobby Lobby decision on.

As I pointed out before, this new language may allow a thousand Hobby Lobbies to bloom in Rhode Island.

Tag: Bernard Healey

RI Future to cover Pope Francis’ US visit

No winners in state budget abortion compromise