• Boston College threatens action against students distributing condoms

    BC Students for Sexual Health

    Boston College Students for Sexual Health have been distributing condoms on campus since 2009. The group is not recognized by the university and was threatened with disciplinary action by college officials if they did not stop handing out contraception.

    By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News

    Promoting safe sex could be dangerous for some Boston College students after school officials threatened them with disciplinary action for distributing condoms on campus, a practice administrators say violates the mission of the Catholic institution.


    The email warning — which has spurred outrage and threats of legal action from the ACLU foundation of Massachusetts  —  was sent to students who designated their dorm rooms as "Safe Sites," places where students can go to to get free condoms and sexual health information.

    The condom campaign was started in 2009 by Boston College Students for Sexual Health, an unofficial student group not recognized by the college yet has existed with the school's knowledge.  

    But on March 15, Dean of Students Paul Chebator and Director of Residence Life George Arey sent an email to the students saying, "The distribution of condoms is not congruent with our values and traditions."  

    "We do need to advise you that should we ­receive any reports that you are, in fact, distributing condoms on campus, the matter would be referred to the student conduct office for disciplinary action by the university,” the letter warned.  

    The note came as a complete shock to senior Lizzie Jekanowski, chair of Boston College Students for Sexual Health. 

    She said in the four years Safe Sites have existed, the group has always had "an open and positive relationship" with administrators. Though school officials have frequently told the group they are at odds with the practice of handing out contraception, Jekanowski said there have never been any warnings of disciplinary action, a notion school administrators disagree with. 

    "None of our actions have changed at all in the past four years," Jekanowski told NBC News. "It came out of nowhere."  

    The email also garnered reaction from Sarah Wunsch, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts who has advised the organization over the years. The warning of disciplinary action, Wunsch said, violates the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.   

    "Our view is that Boston College has a First Amendment right to explain, advertise, and persuade students of their views, but they have gone a step further by threatening these students," she said.  

    Boston College threatens disciplinary action against a non-sanctioned student group handing out condoms and literature on STDs. NECN's Kathryn Sotnik reports.

    But school officials maintain they are a private, religious institution and have the right to set and enforce policies as they see fit. Jack Dunn, spokesman for the college, dismissed the ACLU's involvement, saying they have no standing in the matter at the Jesuit school.  

    Dunn said that student distributing contraception had "taken it to a new level," which prompted the warning after four years of students engaging in the practice.  No longer confined to dorm rooms, Dunn said students had become a visible and disruptive presence on campus, handing out condoms in front of churches and on sidewalks.  

    "Boston College doesn't care how students handle their private lives. You can have condoms in your room," he said. "But it has become an attempt to make a mockery out of Catholic values."  

    School administrators had also told the Boston College Students for Sexual Health in meetings to stop handing out condoms on campus prior to the email being sent, Dunn said.

    He was hopeful a solution could be reached before any disciplinary action was taken. He would not speculate on what the punishment could be, saying they would go through the disciplinary process like any student who violated the college's code of conduct."  

    "If these students had been circumspect, discrete, private -- it never would have come to a head," Dunn said.  

    While Jekanowski said her group has handed out contraception on an off-campus sidewalk, she said she was "personally offended" by the suggestion that the students had been mocking the Catholic church. Instead, she argued, the group was living up to the school's Jesuit teachings.

    "We have the privilege of attending a Jesuit Catholic university so dedicated to the development of the self — both the body and the soul — that we find it both appropriate and necessary to advocate for these sexual health issues that are an integral aspect of that process,” she said in a statement released on March 24.

    Boston College Students for Sexual Health will continue to hand out contraception, and the the 18 Safe Sites will remain open, Jekanowski said. The group will meet with the dean of students and other school administrators on April 29.

    Though the ACLU is hopeful the matter will remain out of court, Wunsch said the civil rights organization will be with them if it gets to that level.

    "We will continue to support them however far they want to go on this issue," she said.

  • Catholic heavyweights challenge Obama rule on contraception

    By Michael O'Brien

     

    Two major Catholic institutions filed lawsuits on Monday challenging the Obama administration's mandate that religiously affiliated employers offer health insurance for their workers that includes coverage for contraception.

     

    Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images

    The University of Notre Dame filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a Health and Human Services rule on contraceptives.

    The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and the University of Notre Dame separately filed lawsuits in federal court challenging a Health and Human Services rule that would require them to offer coverage for contraception, the use of which runs contrary to Catholic teaching.

    "For the first time in this country’s history, the government’s new definition of religious institutions suggests that some of the very institutions that put our faith into practice — schools, hospitals and social service organizations — are not ‘religious enough,'" said Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, in a statement.

    Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, said: "This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives."

    (Jenkins emphasized that the university's suit was not intended to prevent access to contraception or to prevent the government from providing services.)

    The University of Notre Dame is fighting the Obama administration's requirement for most employers to cover contraception – saying the decision violates religious freedoms. NBC's Pete Williams reports.

    The contraceptive regulation erupted into a political firestorm in February, when Republicans seized on the proposed regulation as an example of a government "assault" on religious liberty.

    In the face of public pressure, President Barack Obama announced a compromise in which employers could opt against including coverage for contraception, but insurers would be required to provide the option of coverage of those services to employees who wanted it.

    The proposal became a hot-button political issue in much of February, especially as Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail sought to strengthen exemptions for religiously affiliated employers from regulations that conflict with their faith's official teaching.

  • Utah governor vetoes bill curbing sex education in public schools

    By msnbc.com staff and news services

    SALT LAKE CITY, Utah -- Utah Gov. Gary Herbert on Friday vetoed a controversial bill banning public schools from teaching contraception as a way of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

    The bill, which also sought to bar instruction on homosexuality or other aspects of human sexuality other than the teaching of abstinence, would have been the first of its kind in the nation if it had become law.

    It had previously cleared Utah's Republican-controlled House and Senate, and Herbert was widely expected to sign it.

    In vetoing the measure, dubbed HB 363, Herbert said that as a parent and grandparent he considered proper sex education in public schools an important component to the moral education youngsters receive at home.

    "If HB 363 were to become law, parents would no longer have the option the overwhelming majority is currently choosing for their children. I am unwilling to conclude that the state knows better than Utah's parents as to what is best for their children," he said.

    "In order for parents to take on more responsibility, they need more information, more involvement, and more choice — not less. I cannot sign a bill that deprives parents of their choice," he added.

    Teaches children 'how to have sex'
    Supporters of the bill argued that sex education was best left up to parents.

    Gayle Ruzicka, president of Utah Eagle Forum, a conservative group that describes itself as "leading the pro-family movement", told the Salt Lake Tribune that it was a "sad day for the children of Utah."

    According to the paper, Ruzicka met with Herbert on Friday before he made the decision to veto the bill.

    "It never entered our minds that the governor, who told us he was conservative, would veto such an appropriate piece of legislation," she said. "By vetoing this bill, he just sent the message that Utah's stamp of approval [is] on teaching children how to have sex, teaching contraception and saying this is the safest way to have sex."

    Reuters contributed to this report.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

     

  • Ariz. women may be required to prove birth control not being used to prevent pregnancy

    The bill would also allow all employers, and not just religious institutions, to opt out of providing coverage for birth control.

    By PAUL DAVENPORT, The Associated Press

    PHOENIX - Women in Arizona trying to get reimbursed for birth control drugs through their employer-provided health plan could be required to prove that they are taking it for a medical reason such as acne, rather than to prevent pregnancy.


    A bill nearing passage in the Republican-led Legislature allows all employers, not just religious institutions, to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage when doing so would violate their religious or moral beliefs.

    When a female worker uses birth control pills, which can be used to treat a number of medical conditions, the bill would allow an employer who opted out to require her to reveal what she was taking it for in order to get reimbursed.

    The bill thrusts the state into a raging national debate about religious freedom and birth control, sparked after the Obama administration required that employers must provide contraception coverage under the federal health care overhaul.

    After objections from religious groups, the administration changed course, ordering that insurers, not employers, would have to pay for the coverage. Republicans, social conservatives and some religious groups believe the new order still violates their beliefs.

    "We don't live in the Soviet Union," said the Arizona bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko. "And so government shouldn't be telling employers, Catholic organizations and mom and pop (businesses) to do something that's against their moral beliefs."

    'Women and their doctors'
    Critics say the bill allows employers to violate their worker's privacy.

    "Leave the care of medicine to women and their doctors," said Democratic state Rep. Lela Alston.

    Arizona is among at least 26 states that generally require that health plans cover contraceptives, though it's also among those that let churches and other religious entities opt out of providing the coverage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

    Under the Arizona bill, employers who opt out could make women provide documentation from their health care provider.

    Liza Love, a mental health worker, testified Monday before a Senate committee to oppose the bill, saying she would be required to disclose that she needed contraceptives to treat endometriosis, which is excessive growth of the uterine lining.

    "That's nothing that you as my employer ... have a right to know," she said.

    Privacy concerns raised by opponents
    Opponents of the legislation suggested that the application process might violate a federal law on privacy of medical information. A supporter, Republican Rep. Edie Farnsworth, said it wouldn't because seeking reimbursements is voluntary.

    However, a legislative staff lawyer said it's not clear whether the current opt-out or the expanded one violates other federal law, including the new contraception coverage mandate being implemented by the Obama administration.

    House Rules Attorney Tim Fleming noted that attorneys general for seven states sued to challenge the mandate on First Amendment grounds.

    A national advocacy group for social conservatives, the Alliance Defense Fund, said the current opt-out provision is too restrictive.

    The bill would end uncertainty about "who is sufficiently religious to have their rights of conscience protected," said Gary McCaleb, a lawyer for the Arizona-based group.

    McCaleb also said in a letter to Lesko that enactment of her bill could help state officials fight against federal mandates. Another attorney for the group, Matt Bowman, declined to say how that might work. But he noted the existence of the lawsuit by the other states.

     Journal disavows study linking abortion, mental health

    Other states that have considered legislation this year to broaden their opt-out provisions on required coverage for contraceptives include Missouri and New Hampshire. Bills in those two states remain alive but appear to have stalled.

    The Arizona bill would also erase a law that bans religion-based employers from punishing or firing workers who get contraceptives from a source other than through their employers' health plans.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona opposes the bill, and Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham said supporters shouldn't entangle the state's current coverage requirement with the national debate.

    "If they're looking for some sort of tussle with the federal government, I just wish they would keep in mind the consequences for Arizona women and families because they're the ones that are ultimately hurt by this bill," she said.

    Citing a policy against commenting on bills, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Jan Brewer declined to say whether she had a position on it.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

  • Catholic TV network sues US over birth control mandate

    The measure would require religious-based employers to provide insurance coverage for birth control that church teaching forbids. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.

    By msnbc.com staff and NBC News

    Update Friday, Feb. 10, 12:28 a.m. ET: After days of resistance from religious-based organizations, President Barack Obama has backed away from requiring them to cover birth control for their employees.

    The White House announced Friday that it won't compel religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as a violation of their faith to cover it. Instead, it demanded that insurance companies be responsible for providing free contraception.

    Full details: Obama revamps contraceptive policy 

    Original post: The Obama administration's rule requiring religious employers to cover birth control services is going to court after a Catholic TV network sued Thursday to block the mandate.

    The order, which the Department of Health and Human Services finalized last month, eliminates a federal exemption that allows religion-affiliated institutions to opt out of the law requiring employers to cover contraceptive services in their health insurance packages. 

    Churches themselves would remain exempt, but when it goes into effect Aug. 1, the rule will require church-affiliated universities, hospitals, clubs and the like to cover "all [federally] approved forms of contraception."

    The Roman Catholic Church bans artificial methods of contraception, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has fiercely opposed the new rule, which it said "forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs" and "forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs."

    Read the full statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

    Bioethicist: Bishops' birth control stance harms workers

    Thursday, EWTN — a Catholic television network carried on thousands of cable systems in more than 100 countries — filed suit in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Ala.

    "We had no other option," said Michael Warsaw, president of EWTN, which stands for Eternal Word Television Network. 

    "Under the HHS mandate, EWTN is being forced by the government to make a choice: Either we provide employees coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and violate our conscience or offer our employees and their families no health insurance coverage at all. Neither of those choices is acceptable," Warsaw said.

    On at least one point, Warsaw is wrong, said Erin Shields, HHS's top spokeswoman.

    While the rule covers "emergency contraceptives" like Plan B and Next Choice, it doesn't cover drugs that cause abortion, Shields told NBC station WYFF of Greenville, S.C.

    The HHS rule is also being challenged in Congress, where Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., have sponsored legislation that would restore the option for religious organizations to opt out of coverage.

    "This is about whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn't be doing. It`s that simple," Rubio said. 

    Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., detail their bill to let organizations opt out of the contraception rule.

    But advocates say the measure is an advance for women's reproductive rights, pointing to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that studies sexual and reproductive issues, which reported last year that nearly all sexually active U.S. women had used birth control. That includes 98 percent of Catholic women, the study reported.

    Read the Guttmacher Institute report (.pdf)

    "I am dumbfounded that in the year 2012, we still are fighting about birth control," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "Our opponents will look for any excuse to impose their ideology on women's rights."

    David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said the administration is willing to work with Catholic universities and hospitals to find a way for them to cover contraception without abridging "anyone's religious freedom," NBCLatino reported.

    So far, the administration hasn't said how it plans to do that.

    NBC station WYFF of Greenville, S.C., and NBCLatino.com contributed to the report by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News