House Republicans Charge Obama Administration with Anti-Catholic Bias over Grant Denial to Bishops Group

Print Share on LinkedIn More

December 1, 2011; Source: Washington Post | There are lots of upset people on both sides of this issue: The Department of Health and Human Services has denied a grant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to help victims of human trafficking. The reason appears to be the unwillingness of the Catholic bishops to refer victims for abortion and contraceptive services.

According to Republican critics of HHS, the decision reflects the Obama Administration’s purported bias against Catholics, citing the fact that proposal reviewers ranked the Catholic bishops application above three other groups that received funding. Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) hinted that the Obama Administration’s agenda was “Catholics need not apply.”

HHS officials defended themselves against the charge of anti-Catholic bias by pointing out that Catholic organizations have received more money from the Obama Administration than they received during the final three years of the Bush Administration. According to George Sheldon, the acting assistant secretary for the HHS Administration for Children and Families, the decision was based on “which organizations were best able to serve all the needs of victims.” It is also true that the American Civil Liberties Union sued HHS over its previous anti-trafficking grant to the Bishops Conference.

Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) said this was proof that the Obama Administration won’t fund grant applications of Catholic groups “through a fair and transparent process.” Congressman Gerald Connolly (D-VA) declared that the charges were “hyperbolic rhetoric” meant to “smear the Obama administration.”

According to an HHS memorandum, the Catholic Bishops proposal was ranked second, behind an application from the Heartland Alliance and ahead of applications from Tapestri and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, but that was without consideration of “strong preference” for organizations that would offer all of the services quested in the program, including family planning services and “the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.” According to the memorandum, the HHS “anticipate[s] that the USCCB may file a lawsuit . . . when it receives notification that it has not received funding.”

Emotions are high over this HHS decision. It raises a two-part question for NPQ Newswire readers: (1) Do you think that the Obama Administration is exercising a bias against Catholic service providers, or are the critics exaggerating? (2) Do you think that the HHS requirement of organizations aiding victims of human trafficking to deliver all possible services—including contraceptive and abortion services—is legitimate?—Rick Cohen

  • Russ Foszcz

    Regarding the “two-part question” raised to NPQ readers:

    Although I’ve become EXTREMELY disappointed with much of what the Obama Administration has done to date (re: environmental issues, etc.) – I APPLAUD them for this decision. The Republican majority is off-base claiming that bias has been introduced. Any tax-payer used funding for this issue MUST include ALL OPTIONS – be it, contraceptives, abstinence, or abortion. Although I happen to be pro-choice, there is no “right or wrong” here as everyone is entitled to their opinion – pro-life or pro-choice…

  • Andrew

    I agree with the commenter above. It is well within the rights of HHS to set the guidelines as they best see fit. The Catholic Bishops have received grants totaling over $20 million from the government already this year, so to think anti-Catholic bias exists is solely screaming from the sidelines. This sets up a similar struggle from Catholic hospitals not desiring to offer preventative birth control to employees. As federal law already prohibits proselytizing, I do not understand how the Catholic church can challenge the law and still expect to receive money as they see fit.

  • Clark

    It’s rather suspicious that the USCCB proposal was rejected even though it was ranked higher than those proposals which were accepted. If the preference for offering contraception and abortion was so strong, why didn’t those elements make it into the evaluation rubric?

    I don’t view it as anti-Catholic bias. But it certainly appears to be the results of a poor evaluation and award process.