Bill to exempt Christian Scientists from Obamacare advances

A House panel found itself debating the beliefs of Christian Scientists on Thursday, as lawmakers passed a bill exempting followers from Obamacare’s mandate to buy health coverage.

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Ways and Means Committee, allows those who rely solely on “a religious method” for healing instead of visiting the doctor, such as Christian Scientists, to be excused from the penalty for being uninsured under the Affordable Care Act. It’s sponsored by Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill.

The healthcare law provides limited religious exemptions. Those who object to getting insurance at all, such as the Amish or Mennonites, can be excused from the individual mandate.

Republicans said Thursday that doesn’t go far enough.

“Right now, the exemption is tiny,” said Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. “To qualify, you have to believe, as a matter of faith, in giving up any private or public insurance — including Social Security. That includes the Amish, the Old Order Mennonites and that’s about it. That is way too strict.”

Unlike many Obamacare changes Republicans have proposed, Democrats suggested they agreed with the underlying goal of ensuring those opposed to receiving healthcare based on religious belief can have the freedom to opt out if they choose to do so.

But they expressed concern that it allows Christian Scientists to choose to opt out of whatever kinds of government requirements and benefits they want. The bill would change only the requirements under the healthcare law, meaning those following the beliefs of Christian Science could still participate in Social Security.

Democrats also suggested the exemption could be misused by other people who want to remain uninsured and get out of paying the fine, even if they don’t qualify for a religious exemption.

“What makes a person eligible if you just decide, ‘I don’t want to get caught in the mandate and I [say I] conscientiously object to be being penalized,'” said Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.

“This is so vague, it sounds almost unconstitutional.”

Related Content