There are several Catholic diocese that are challenging the Health and Human Services administrative ruling that places them between the moral rock and the hard place, so to speak. While there are many aspects to the larger issue of the HHS ruling concerning contraceptives, this case involves diocese that self-insure; as do many organizations that have a large number of employees.  The Archdiocese of NY (with several other diocese) and its insurance entity are suing in court over the matter. 

This past week the District Court ruled on the US Government’s claim that there was no standing to bring the suit against a rule that was not yet enacted. The Judge dismissed the US Government’s contention that the plaintiffs are suffering no real damages because of  any present costs incurred by the plaintiffs before the enactment .  The court wrote:

Fundamentally, however, this Court cannot accept that the present costs incurred by plaintiffs are simply the result of their “desire to prepare for contingencies.”  Quite frankly, ignoring the speeding train that is coming towards plaintiffs in the hope that it will stop might well be inconsistent with the fiduciary duties that plaintiffs’ directors or officers owe to their members. As explained above, the practical realities of administering health care coverage for large numbers of employees- which defendants’ recognize- require plaintiffs to incur these costs in advance of the impending effectiveness of the Coverage Mandate. That is a business reality that any responsible board of directors would have to appreciate.

That makes sense so far. I was amused by the Constitutional insight the followed

Moreover, the First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action. There is no, “Trust us, changes are coming” clause in the Constitution. To the contrary, the Bill of Rights itself, and the First Amendment in particular, reflect a degree of skepticism towards governmental self-restraint and self-correction . . . . Considering the extraordinary political passion surrounding the Coverage Mandate from all sides, there is simply no way to predict what, if any, changes to the Coverage Mandate will be made, even if some policymakers favor certain changes.

There indeed is no simple way to predict what is coming down the administrative or legislative road.  And so we are called to remain vigilant.