ARTICLES

NEWS

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC

Contents © 2000
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

They Now Cover Contraceptives

Loyola Marymount Offers Incense to Caesar

By Christopher Zehnder

Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles now offers contraceptive coverage in its health plans. A notice in the September 2000 university health benefits newsletter, The Navigator, announced the new coverage: "Enhanced Contraceptive Coverage: To comply with Assembly Bill 39, Blue Shield and Kaiser will provide coverage for a variety of prescription contraceptives."

Now, whether this coverage is entirely new, or an enhancement of already existing coverage, is unclear from the announcement. University representatives would not return my calls or e-mail to clarify this and other questions I had. I did speak to university philosophy professor, Jim Hanink, who also was disturbed by the announcement. His queries went further than mine did, but the questions he e-mailed to university president, Father Robert Lawton, S.J., were not answered.

"I talked to the fellow [Frank Montalvo] who puts out this newsletter," said Hanink, "and I cannot remember verbatim what he said, but he told me the lawyers have been consulted, the president had reviewed the question. [Montalvo] said something like we didn't think this had to apply to us, but the lawyers said, better be cautious. And, in fact, from a technical legal view, the lawyers were exactly right. I did a little digging around on the nature of the bill, and I went and e-mailed the president a letter on the fourteenth [of September]."

The California state assembly passed the bill in question, the Women's Contraceptive Equity Act, in September 1999. The act requires health care insurance packages to provide "coverage for outpatient prescription drug benefits to include coverage for a variety of federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved prescription contraceptive methods." While the act exempts "religious employers," it defines a religious employer as: one whose purpose is "the inculcation of religious values," and as one who primarily employs and serves those who share the employer's religious tenets. Thus, if they work with HMOs, Catholic hospitals, universities, schools, along with private businesses owned by Catholics must provide contraceptive care as part of their benefits packages. Employers who provide their own written plans (EPOs) are (so far) exempt from California law.

In his letter to Father Lawton, Hanink asked why Loyola Marymount referred to contraceptives, "some of which are probably abortifacients, in terms of 'enhanced coverage?'" Such language, noted Hanink, "comes from our insurers, but surely we can speak for ourselves." Next, Hanink asked, "if this contraceptive 'enhancement' comes from Assembly Bill 39, oughn't we to explain this legislation to the [Loyola Marymount] constituency?"

In our conversation, Hanink noted that "the great majority" of faculty and staff would have no knowledge of the Women' Equity Contraceptive Act. The announcement in The Navigator "could have been an occasion for a statement from the president's office, noting the character of this bill, how it is being challenged by Catholic Charities -- but, that just passed right by." (In September, Catholic Charities, along with the California Catholic Conference, was applying for injunctive relief from the bill, which a state judge denied them in late September. Their lawsuit against the state is still pending).

In regards to this lawsuit, Hanink asked Father Lawton, "mighn't we wonder whether blithely referring to 'the enhanced contraceptive coverage' called for by the legislation undercuts the Catholic Charities legal action against the State?" Hanink told me it seems hard to claim that the state is wrongly treating you in forcing you to provide for contraceptives when you use language that suggests you are already providing for them.

In his last question to Father Lawton, Hanink wrote, "oughtn't we [to] examine our consciences about the level of complicity involved in the University's paying for contraceptives, especially abortifacient contraceptives? At some point this examination becomes inescapable. Suppose, for example, we were in Oregon -- how would we handle [in a similar circumstance] physician-assisted suicide?"

"Were I writing this today," Hanink told me in October, "I would ask, what about RU486? And were I writing this today, I would ask, how are you going to have a credible answer for the students who, from regular time to regular time raise the question about contraceptives for students in the school clinic? As you know, we have regular conferences on leadership, on our distinct contribution to higher education, on justice, on everything -- except, a question like this is not characteristically addressed in the way it should be addressed."

Father Lawton did send a short e-mail message acknowledging Hanink's questions. "You raise important questions," wrote Lawton. "Let me look into the matter, think about the issues, and get back to you. [signed] Bob." At press time, (mid-October) Father Lawton had not gotten back to Hanink.

"If you have a fundamentally bureaucratic ethos," said Hanink, "it's very hard to respond non-bureaucratically to something that needs a more decisive response. Speaking sociologically (which is a terrible thing to have to do) the university is a kind of a blend of the chamber of commerce and the Kiwanis club; and for all the good will and good heartedness and collegiality, institutionally there simply is not the will to address these questions -- and, in the past, there have not been many questions of this sort. But there are going to be more and more and more."

It's easy to be the critic, but what would Hanink do if he were the university's president? "I'd do my best to explain the issues," he replied. "I'd do my best to get the consortium of Jesuit colleges to file a brief in support of Catholic Charities. I would be very public about my own opposition to this [bill]. I would organize some informed discussions about the matter. I would point out that, even though there is a terrible Catholic irresolution about contraception, that this is the beginning of many such other issues about which there is much more Catholic resolve and that we better get our act together."

And what if the legal challenges fail?

"There have been precedents in this area on the diocesan level, and what you do is put together some sort of private insurer who is not bound to follow this kind of legislation."

Hanink, however, is not the president, and it doesn't seem likely that the current administration will mobilize any opposition to the state. "These institutions have so positioned themselves," said Hanink, "that they are really hard-pressed to challenge this kind of government action. Whether they have the will to do so or have grasped the issues well enough to do so, I'm very, very doubtful. So, it's kind of like, can these bones rise again? Speaking in terms of the economy of grace, they certainly can, and I have every belief that they will; but how that will come about I don't know."

However, given the current state of affairs, such institutions should, at least, acknowledge their irresolution. Hanink's letter to Father Lawton suggested as much. "Let me suggest," he wrote, "that until we address these questions there be a moratorium on the usual University rhetoric about leadership, speaking a prophetic voice, and the like."

TOP