This bill would improve programs already in place that are specifically designed to aid underage victims of trafficking, increase the ease of which local law enforcement and prosecutors can investigate possible trafficking and child pornography, and establish more services for child victims of trafficking.
Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore and Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, are asking the Catholic faithful and others to reach out to their senators in response to a piece of legislation known as “Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014” (S. 2578.) Lori is the chairman for the United State’s Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee for Religious Liberty, and O’Malley serves as chair for the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities.
According to the letter on the USCCB website, the legislation is an attempt to reduce religious freedom, and puts health coverage above one of America’s most cherished freedoms. The bishops list several concerns:
This new legislation “appears to override ‘any other provision of Federal law’ that protects religious freedom or rights of conscience regarding health coverage mandates.”
This bill would “rollback” not only federally-protected conscience clauses regarding artificial birth control “but to any ‘specific health care item or service’ that is mandated by any federal law or regulation.” In the future, if the executive branch decides to add late-term abortions (for example) to mandated health care coverage, employers would have no recourse.
This bill applies to all employers, not simply for-profit employers.
The bill would extend its reach past employees, to their dependents. For instance, a teen girl may wish to have an abortion over her parent’s objection, and the parent’s health care package would have to pay for it. The daughter would be federally-entitled to the abortion coverage.
The bishops believe this type of legislation will lead to employers dropping health care coverage for employees all together.
“No committee, arguably, has more power or attracts more lobbyists than the Committee on Ways and Means,” writes the NYT’s Robin Toner. “Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, joined the committee in 1975, and now, at the age of 76, has finally arrived at the very top.”
“[Jesus] said the rich are going straight to hell.”
Jared Bernstein, a liberal economist, said: “When the Ways and Means Committee has worked well, they’ve identified social needs and advocated for the funds to meet them. Will this committee do that? I hope so.”
What does this mean for Rangel’s chairmanship? “Chairmen of the 218-year-old committee have traditionally been at the center of the great debates, including how to support a growing elderly population and how to deal with the excesses of capitalism.”
You can expect Rangel to engage economic issues from a similar rhetorical perspective, a liberal one that seeks “to cushion workers in this rough, new, competitive environment.” But as Toner also observes that “the ideological gulf between the two parties is vast, not just on tax cuts, but on the role of government versus the private market in areas like health care.”
In recognition of Rep. Rangel’s new position, we offer this moment from the Acton Institute’s history. Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president of the Acton Institute, and Rep. Rangel share the following exchange during Rev. Sirico’s testimony before the Ways and Means Committee in 1995 on welfare reform: