Federal officials reverse position on religious-based grant program

By The Associated Press

05.18.01

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from the White House, federal health officials reversed course yesterday and opened a grant program to secular groups as well as religious groups.

The White House concluded that limiting a $4 million program for HIV and drug abuse prevention to only religious groups violates the spirit of its "faith-based initiative."

Two months ago, the Department of Health and Human Services began soliciting proposals for the program and specified that it would only consider applications from religious groups. It was a decision made before Presiden George W. Bush took office but implemented afterward.

Two days ago, the White House had no response when asked about the program by the Associated Press, although the agency that runs the program defended its decision to exclude secular organizations.

By yesterday, the White House was pressuring HHS to reverse course, which the department promptly did.

"Once it came to their attention and our attention, it needed to be adjusted," HHS spokesman Tony Jewell said. "They wanted to be in line with the president's principles."

The latest move means that the administration appears to have avoided further controversy in an already contentious debate over the wisdom and constitutionality of directing government money to religious groups.

Bush and others have argued that government grants should be open to churches, congregations and other religious groups, saying it is discriminatory to exclude them from the competition for taxpayer dollars.

But Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which first noticed the restricted grant, had threatened to sue HHS if it did not change the grant eligibility. Other opponents had begun issuing new releases blasting the administration and the program.

"I'm delighted they have seen the light," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

His group argues that sending any government money to overtly religious groups is unconstitutional, and said Americans United still plans court challenges of other aspects of the president's initiative.

The grants in question, run by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, are meant to help organizations that work with young people, particularly in black and Hispanic communities, to address drug abuse and HIV prevention at the same time.

The program totals $16.6 million, with three components. Just one of them excludes secular groups.

It was the agency's first effort to set money aside for religious groups and was done because officials believe these groups are in the best position to reach teens exposed to the greatest risk. SAMHSA spokesman Mark Weber said May 16 the agency had fully considered the legal issues and was aware that the issue would be politically dicey.

Agency officials, who work across town from the HHS headquarters, tried to alert political appointees at the department, but either nobody realized the grants would cause a stir or the message never broke through in the chaotic opening months of a new administration, department officials said.

Until now, the legal debate over financing religious groups has centered on whether giving them tax dollars amounts to unconstitutional mingling of church and state.

Opponents have argued that even if religious and secular groups are both funded, giving money to religious groups violates the First Amendment's ban on government establishment of religion.

And they seized on the restricted grants to suggest that government was trying to favor religious over secular programs.

The American Jewish Congress said yesterday that it was suing a California program that excludes secular providers and would do the same if HHS did not reverse course.

"It is clearly discriminatory and unconstitutional," said the group's executive director, Phil Baum.

Related

Federal appeals court again upholds graduation prayer
Student statements at high school graduation don’t violate Constitution, 11th Circuit finds in second look at Florida case.  05.15.01