By Valerie Schmalz, OSV contributing editor
If you work for the Jesuit University of San Francisco, no matter which USF health insurance you choose, it will pay for an abortion, sterilization, artificial contraception and some infertility treatments. And that is unlikely to change anytime soon, despite a report here earlier this year.
The USF Faculty Association president, Elliot Neaman, said today that if the university tries to remove the abortion benefit, it would file an unfair labor practice complaint.
Whether abortion involves the killing of a child is “not relevant,” Neaman told OSV. “You are mixing up morality and contractual obligations,” he said.
Based on a report from USF, we had reported the good news that the University of San Francisco had notified its faculty that as of March 1 it was removing abortion coverage — both surgical and chemical — from its Blue Cross plan (but was unable to do so from a recently negotiated Kaiser Permanente HMO plan).
But Wednesday, Gary McDonald, a top communications official for the university, told us that "altering an insurance plan once it goes into effect is more complicated than we anticipated."
"We have not yet been able to drop that coverage. A number of unions have voiced objections to any change in their insurance, and we are working with our employee groups, our attorneys and insurance brokers to understand the complicated legal and procedural details," McDonald said.
Communications official Anne-Marie Devine confirmed that the upshot is that all health plans offered by USF include abortion.
“It is my duty to enforce a contact," Neaman said. "The university cannot unilaterally change the contract. They have to go to the bargaining table. All benefits are negotiated. The Faculty Association contract expires in 2011." The issue can be renegotiated, “if they choose to put that on the table. All the ideological religious stuff is completely irrelevant," he said.
Neaman said that fact USF is willing to offer the Kaiser HMO plan which includes a $15 co-pay for an abortion means their stance on the Blue Cross plan “is kind of a hypocritical position.” USF just extended the Kaiser HMO plan in a contract with the adjunct faculty association this month.
Removing the abortion benefit because it is in the Blue Cross PPO agreed to in the labor contract “would be something like abolishing tenure. It is a point of law,” Neaman said. “It would make everything else in the contract vulnerable. ... If you have a contract with someone you can’t break it.” Neaman said the Blue Cross PPO has included abortion and contraception for many years: “It probably goes back 20 years,” and the university just noticed it when it was brought to their attention by journalists, he said.
Neaman said the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion is irrelevant because USF is not legally a Catholic university. "A long time ago, to get federal funding, the Jesuits divested themselves of the university so it is basically run by the board of trustees. They cannot apply for an exemption as a Catholic university because they could lose federal funding because of that," he said.
Asked if he disagreed with Church teaching on abortion, Neaman said, “It is completely irrelevant what my opinion is. I enforce the contract. That is my job.”
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Visit 
Posts
10 comments:
And Mr. Neaman is the epitome of what is wrong with the modern labor movement, not concerned with right or wrong or what is best for all parties involved, just "the contract." Many throughout history have tried the copout, "just doing my job" and like the rest, history will not judge him favorably.
Hey, let's get back to bashing public-school teachers.
Mr. Neaman's comments are chilling and reminicent of Nazi rationalizations and mind game distancing of the extermination of millions of human beings.
Like it or not, the argument from the perspective of contract sticks. If you have ever worked in higher ed, you would know that faculty senates hold immense power.
For decades, Jesuit universities have scorned "hiring for mission" and now it is coming back to bite. Is it so difficult to hire good, devout, Catholics to positions of responsibility? Someone without sensitivity to RC teaching negotiated that contract, and now USF is stuck. My sense is that this will take about 5-10 years to fix, but the fix should not be played out in the press.
I am a law student at USF. Student groups that I have been involved in have received university funding to host pro-life speakers, such as Nikolas Nikas, President of the Bioethics Defense Fund. My school cherishes its Catholic heritage and respects Catholic values. Based on this article, the university seems to be making a good faith effort to renegotiate the health insurance contracts now that the abortion issue has come to light. This shows that USF is sensative to Catholic teachings. Does anybody know whether other federally funded Jesuit universities have the same kind of health insurance contracts as USF?
Mr. Neaman's position may be correct but that doesn't ignore the fact that contracts can be good or bad and laws can be good or bad, but abortion is intrinsically evil and that is an absolute truth. It is not a matter of ideology, religion or even a matter of morals just evil, regardless of race, color, creed or persuasion. "Just doing my job" is a cop out, he should be helping to find a loop hole in a bad contract. It's sad that a bad contract should be binding because of lack of due diligence.
When the next collective bargaining begins it is the right of the employer to propose that certain provisions in the collective agreement be amended or deleted.
At that time the University can eventually state that is their final offer, and then the Union can have their members vote on the last offer of the employer, and if the employees reject the offer, without the provision of Abortion in Health Care Coverage...the employees are free to go on strike...and stay on strike until they are prepared to accept the proposal.
Ten will get you one, that the majority of employees will vote to accept the University offer!
Wait and see!
It is highly significant that Valerie Schmaltz has misquoted Professor Neaman. Both he and Fr. President Privett have reaffirmed that USF is indeed a Catholic University, whose tradition we honor. Professor Neaman is correct in consistently indicating that moral and contractual obligations, while related, are legally separate, and that changes in the contract need to be negotiated.
We look forward to an open dialogue on this issue, in the interests of both moral and academic integrity.
Throughout my decades as a reporter in the secular and Catholic press, I have held myself to the highest standards of journalistic fairness and accuracy. And I stand by my posting and by the transcription of my telephone interview with Mr. Neaman. This is not the first time I have seen an interviewee take a swipe at a reporter because of what in retrospect was an ill-advised comment.
What are the facts? As Mr. Neaman himself stipulates above, he told me that USF is not legally a Catholic university, and that years ago the Jesuits divested themselves of ownership of the university.
The context? He made that statement following my question about how a Catholic university could offer a health insurance plan that covers procedures that violate fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching.
He told me such questions were “irrelevant,” a word he used repeatedly.
“All that ideological, religious stuff is completely irrelevant,” he said. “We have a contract. The contract is important. It does not matter whether it is a Catholic university.”
Neaman then went on to say that legally, USF “is not a Catholic university.”
I reported his statement, his qualifications of his statement, and the context. He may not be happy with what he told me, but he was quoted fairly.
Throughout my decades as a reporter in the secular and Catholic press, I have held myself to the highest standards of journalistic fairness and accuracy. And I stand by my posting and by the transcription of my telephone interview with Mr. Neaman. This is not the first time I have seen an interviewee take a swipe at a reporter because of what in retrospect was an ill-advised comment.
What are the facts? As Mr. Neaman himself stipulates above, he told me that USF is not legally a Catholic university, and that years ago the Jesuits divested themselves of ownership of the university.
The context? He made that statement following my question about how a Catholic university could offer a health insurance plan that covers procedures that violate fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching.
He told me such questions were “irrelevant,” a word he used repeatedly.
“All that ideological, religious stuff is completely irrelevant,” he said. “We have a contract. The contract is important. It does not matter whether it is a Catholic university.”
Neaman then went on to say that legally, USF “is not a Catholic university.”
I reported his statement, his qualifications of his statement, and the context. He may not be happy with what he told me, but he was quoted fairly.
Post a Comment