Dr. Philip Ryken, President, Wheaton College alumni@wheaton.edu via email.imodules.com
Reply-to: alumni@wheaton.edu
Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Subject: Responding to your feedback regarding HHS Mandate

Thank you for your thoughtful comments about Wheaton's decision to file a lawsuit against the HHS Health Insurance Mandate. While I am gratified by the many responses of support, I also take seriously every expression of concern or even dissent. Please know that I have read your message and will share it with Dr. David Gieser, who serves as Chairman of our Board of Trustees.
I hope you will take time to read and consider the rest of this message, especially since many of the concerns I have heard so far come from a lack of full knowledge about our case.
The Department of Health and Human Services recognizes that, for religious reasons, certain provisions in its mandate violate the conscience of some employers. For this reason, the HHS has provided a full exemption for churches and other houses of worship.
To date the HHS has not extended a similar exemption to other religious institutions, such as Christian colleges and universities. This is our primary concern: if allowed to stand, the HHS mandate allows the government to declare that Wheaton College no longer qualifies as a religious institution, effectively stripping us of our First Amendment freedom of religion. We believe that we too have religious liberties that are fully protected by the United States Constitution.
Please know that Wheaton College is not:
* filing this lawsuit for political purposes,
* opposing the Affordable Care Act or trying to block it,
* opposing or preventing access to most forms of contraception, or
* funding this lawsuit from our own limited resources.
By way of fuller explanation, here I will answer some common questions and correct some misconceptions by listing objections to the filing and offering a brief response.
+ Wheaton is filing this lawsuit for political purposes-either in response to the pressure of special interest groups or to further the agenda of a political party. Wheaton College is a non-partisan institution. The Trustees-who are affiliated with multiple political parties-properly regard religious liberty as a non-partisan issue.
+ The College has been hasty in filing a lawsuit without attempting to resolve their concerns directly with the HHS. Wheaton's Administration first raised its concerns quietly and directly with the HHS shortly after the mandate was handed down last August. Our hope all along has been that the HHS would grant the exemption we believe that we are entitled to receive. When this exemption was not forthcoming by May, the Trustees voted unanimously-yet reluctantly, as a last resort-to proceed with a lawsuit.
+ The lawsuit is politically motivated and has been timed to influence the upcoming elections. Political considerations played no part in the deliberations or decision of the Trustees. They decided to wait for filing until after the Supreme Court published its decision on the Affordable Care Act at the end of June, in case that decision might provide any relief for Wheaton's First Amendment concerns. With the mandate scheduled to take effect on August 1, and with punitive fines accruing from January 1, they believed that the College could not afford to wait any longer.
+ It is morally wrong for Wheaton College to oppose the Affordable Care Act. As a non-partisan institution, Wheaton neither supports nor opposes the Affordable Care Act, which remains substantially unaffected by our lawsuit. Our objection is to a specific requirement of the HHS Insurance Mandate, namely, the mandatory provision of abortion-inducing drugs. The relief we seek is an exemption, not a repeal.
+ The drugs that are required by the HHS mandate are contraceptives, not abortifacients. The mandate includes drugs that, although categorized by the government as contraceptives, can cause an early abortion. For example, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services are all on record as stating that the "week after" pill (ella) can have an abortive effect on a fertilized egg.
+ In filing this lawsuit, Wheaton College is limiting the access of women to vital health services. Wheaton supports nearly every preventative service required by the HHS mandate and provides comprehensive health coverage to all of its employees, women included. Our objection is to a service we do not presently provide, so there is no question here of taking away any choices or services from women in the Wheaton community (or elsewhere). On the contrary, filing this lawsuit is a principled way for Wheaton to continue to provide excellent health care to all its employees.
+ Contraception is an individual decision that ought to be a woman's personal choice. While Wheaton College respects the views of Roman Catholics and other Christians who reject contraception outright, neither our Statement of Faith nor our Community Covenant take this position. Thus we provide certain forms of contraception in our health coverage. By their own free choice, in signing the Community Covenant, Wheaton's women and men promise to "uphold the God-given worth of human beings, from conception to death"-a voluntary commitment that rules out any form of abortion.
+ Pursuing this lawsuit is a waste of Wheaton's financial resources. Wheaton College is grateful for the legal representation of The Becket Fund, which is provided pro bono. Becket was chosen in part because of its clearly-established track record as a non-partisan, non-sectarian law firm that has successfully defended the religious liberty of Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and clients from other faith communities.
+ Wheaton should focus on more important matters that are more central to the gospel. We agree. Many "weightier matters of the law," as Jesus called them, remain at the forefront of a Wheaton education, such as mercy and evangelism. Yet we also need to give appropriate attention to the one place where the government is acting to deny our freedom to carry out our mission-a conflict we would not choose, but cannot ignore.
+ The College should simply accept the HHS mandate, recognizing that its faculty and staff do not have to utilize the services that their insurance must provide. We believe that it is morally inconsistent to provide services that go against our conscience and violate the standards of our Community Covenant. This is a matter of religious principle, which it is unconstitutional for the government to force us to violate. Just as importantly, in denying us the exemption it has provided to churches, the mandate allows the government to declare that we are not entitled to First Amendment protection for our freedom of religion-a dangerous precedent.
For more information about the HHS Health Insurance Mandate and the College's lawsuit, please visit the Wheaton College website.

Sincerely,

Philip Graham Ryken
President

26,000 premature deaths/yr in US b/o no health insurance

A KERFUFFLE has broken out between philosophy and physics. It began earlier this spring when a philosopher (David Albert) gave a sharply negative review in this paper to a book by a physicist (Lawrence Krauss) that purported to solve, by purely scientific means, the mystery of the universe's existence. The physicist responded to the review by calling the philosopher who wrote it "moronic" and arguing that philosophy, unlike physics, makes no progress and is rather boring, if not totally useless. And then the kerfuffle was joined on both sides.

Doctors' inertia in changing practice to fit new evidence - especially in cancer screening

Even highly effective people fear displeasing doc by speaking up

Political action, talking to moderates, needed - instead of just condemning the right.

From Bush v. Gore thru permission to strip-search any arrestee....

Med resource overuse

Medical debts of elderly despite Medicare

Online support systems for family member's complex medical needs

Personalized music arousing elderly w/ dementia, ?"locked-in"

Even when the system works as it's supposed to, and palliative care specialists arrive like the cavalry to provide comfort care, to stop fruitless and painful interventions and to support what patients want, their own colleagues may brand them murderers. It takes strong doctors to stand up to that kind of verbal abuse, to explain that courts and ethics committees have approved care that's intended to reduce suffering, to point out that the patient's own wishes are paramount. Perhaps they have to be stronger than we know. "The culture is changing," Dr. Matlock told me. "But it's not changed yet."

Teacher describes reunion with former students in Tanzania. "Mountains can never meet, but people can meet again." - Swahili proverb

In a globalized economy, the countries that pay the most and offer the greatest chance for advancement tend to get the top talent. South America's best soccer players generally migrate to Europe, where the salaries are high and the tournaments are glitzier than those in Brazil or Argentina. Many top high-tech workers from India and China move to the United States to work for American companies. And the United States, with its high salaries and technological innovation, is also the world's most powerful magnet for doctors, attracting more every year than Britain, Canada and Australia - the next most popular destinations for migrating doctors - combined.

Interview by John C. Reed, MD, PhD - CEO, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, La Jolla, California.

'Capitalism must be corrected: The social doctrine of the Church stands above existing economic systems, since it confines itself to the level of principles. An economic system is good only to the extent that it applies the principles of justice taught by the Church. As Pope John Paul II wrote in 1987, in his encyclical letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis: "The tension between East and West is an opposition... between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples, both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction... This is one of the reasons why the Church's social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism." '

"In a major encyclical addressing the economic questions raised by the upheaval in Eastern Europe in 1989, Pope John Paul II warned capitalist nations yesterday against letting the collapse of Communism blind them to the need to repair injustices in their own economic system. "The encyclical, "Centesimus Annus" ("The Hundredth Year"), includes the fullest, and in many ways the most positive, treatment of the market economy in any papal document. But praise is typically followed with qualifications and ringing reminders about economic failures in both developing and developed countries."

What did the makers of America believe about God and religion? The subject is stirring the very rancour they wanted to avoid. Dec 17th 2011 | Washington, DC

Focus only on Natural Law

>'With unrealistic expectations of our ability to prolong life, with death as an unfamiliar and unnatural event, and without a realistic, tactile sense of how much a worn-out elderly patient is suffering, it's easy for patients and families to keep insisting on more tests, more medications, more procedures. >Doing something often feels better than doing nothing. Inaction feeds the sense of guilt-ridden ineptness family members already feel as they ask themselves, "Why can't I do more for this person I love so much?" >...At a certain stage of life, aggressive medical treatment can become sanctioned torture. When a case such as this comes along, nurses, physicians and therapists sometimes feel conflicted and immoral. We've committed ourselves to relieving suffering, not causing it. A retired nurse once wrote to me: "I am so glad I don't have to hurt old people any more." '