LifeNet

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Obamacare - a probable satisfactory settlement

This is from Ed Mechmann, the NY Archdiocese Director of Public Policy.

His posting is eight paragraphs long - we are excerpting two - plus the concluding paragraph. We strongly recommend you hit the link and read the entire posting.

A Light at the End of the Tunnel?

Now the religious organizations and the government have filed their briefs. The Little Sisters et al. readily agreed to the Court's suggestion, saying that they could comply with an arrangement where they are not required to take any action that would trigger the provision of the services, and if the services are actually provided by a separate insurance plan (even if it is run by their regular insurance carrier). This is all that the religious organizations have ever wanted -- to be left alone to do their work, without getting dragged into anyone's sex lives. In effect, they were saying to the Court, "This is the solution that we would have suggested to the government years ago, if they had only asked".

The government, for its part, reacted by quibbling, complaining, and digging their heels in. They complained about having to file a new brief. They insisted that no further concessions were necessary to protect the religious groups' consciences -- as if they knew better what is in violation of Catholic or Protestant moral teachings. They groused that the Court's suggestion would require changes to other sections of the law and regulations, as if that were something unheard-of, rather than the commonplace result of any litigation of this type. They continued to fantasize that any further accommodation would lead to a parade of horribles -- endless further litigation, thousands of women without health care, etc. And in the end, as if they were swallowing nasty-tasting medicine, they kind-of, sort-of, very reluctantly maybe agreed that the Court's suggestion would be barely acceptable. 

This ungracious reply hurts the government's credibility, and is cause to be hopeful for a positive result. The Court now has reason to wonder why the case is even before them, and has a clear way to resolve it.

>>>>>>>>

That would end this long nightmare, and vindicate the right to conscience of religious organizations. But it also raises a troubling question -- if such a common-sense solution was available all this time, why did the government insist on forcing the cooperation of the religious groups? I know of no other answer, other than the dministration's well-established hostility to traditional religious values, and their complete dedication to the spread of the ideology of sexual liberation, against any opposition.

 For more details - also forwarded around from Ed Mechmann - here are links to the Scotusblog website.

  The religious non-profits (e.g., the Little Sisters) accepted the Supreme Court's suggested resolution of the HHS mandate litigation: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/religious-non-profits-fully-endorse-courts-birth-control-access-idea/.  The Government, predictably, was less than enthused: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/u-s-would-accept-modest-change-on-birth-control-mandate-warily/.

Supreme Court Religious Freedom decision analysis

There are other good ones which we will be posting; here's one from yesterday's WSJ columnist, James Taranto. And Mr. Taranto is neither a Christian, nor is he pro-life. but he is honest.

Excerpts below the link.

The Corporate Conscience. Hobby Lobby and the left's contradictions.

For-profit corporations, at least if they are "closely held," can raise conscientious objections to government policies under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. So the Supreme Court held today, by a vote of 5-2, in the much-anticipated case now styled Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

The vote in Hobby Lobby's favor was actually 5-4, along familiar lines, but as we shall explain, two dissenting justices declined to address the question whether RFRA's protections can apply to for-profit companies. The majority, in a decision by Justice Samuel Alito held that Hobby Lobby and two other companies need not comply with the ObamaCare birth-control mandate, to which their owners object on religious grounds.

The plaintiffs in these cases did not claim their First Amendment rights had been violated; such a claim, as we noted in March, would almost certainly have been precluded by the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith. But Congress responded to that case by enacting RFRA, which mandates the courts apply "strict scrutiny" to government policies as enforced against litigants who object on religious grounds.

In order to meet strict scrutiny, the government must show both that the policy is justified by a "compelling" interest and that it is the "least restrictive means" of furthering that interest. At least five justices seemed to agree that the interest in assuring cost-free access to the abortifacient contraceptives in question is "compelling": the four dissenters and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in a concurring opinion wrote: "It is important to confirm that a premise of the Court's opinion is its assumption that the HHS regulation at issue here furthers a legitimate and compelling interest in the health of female employees."

That's true, but the premise was stipulated--"we assume," wrote Justice Alito--not decided. For the plaintiffs to prevail, it would be sufficient for the government to fail either test, and as Justice Alito argues, it clearly failed the least-restrictive-means test:

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government's aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.

Some religious nonprofits have argued that the HHS accommodation is too restrictive and violates their First Amendment rights; this case does not address that question--or, indeed, whether "an approach of this type complies with RFRA," in Alito's words. The majority cite another less-restrictive alternative: a government program providing contraceptives directly.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a hyperbolic dissent (citation omitted):

In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a "less restrictive alternative."

As Kennedy gently observes in response, "the Court's opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent." Ginsburg suggests the decision would open up the possibility of religious exemptions from statutes prohibiting race discrimination, a claim Alito and the majority flatly reject: "The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal."

Ginsburg's claim that "the court decides" religious opt-outs should be available when a "less restrictive alternative" is available is misleading. Here the court did not, as it frequently does by necessity, apply a standard of its own invention in interpreting broadly written constitutional language. The "less restrictive alternative" language is in the RFRA statute; it was Congress, not the court, that made that decision.

 

Supreme Court rules 5-4 in abortion/contraception case, upholding religious freedom

Only 5-4, which is very sad. But infinitely better than 4-5.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The contraceptives the plaintiffs objected to were, of course, abortifacients.

We will post more on this decision in the next ew days.

EWTN's Catholic Action Insight interview with Cardinal Raymond Burke

This interview was on EWTN earlier today.

Hit this link for the entire video, posted on the Catholic Action website.

Thomas McKenna interviewing Cardinal Burke

In the interview, Cardinal Burke addresses why a Catholic employer cannot, and should not be expected to, provide health care insurance that includes contraception and sterilization. He explains how this would be not only material cooperation in the sin, but also formal cooperation and for that reason there is no way to justify this implementation.

NY City Rally for Religious Freedom - a big success!

500 enthusiastic people of all ages and backgrounds were there, below the statue of George Washington at the Federal Hall National Memorial at 26 Wall Street.

Of course, this was only one of 140 Rallies nationwide.

FOX was the only television news at the Rally.

You can read about coverage in the local Journal News here Hundreds rally on Wall St. over contraception rule, claim attack on religion including 16 photos

In USA Today Religious rallies across USA protest birth-control mandate

In the Washington Post Social conservatives hope for renewed fervor in contraceptive controversies

No coverage in the NY Times. None. Nada. Didn't happen.

We will post more material from the Rally over the next couple of days.

Here are two short videos to give some sense of the flavor of the day.

The speakers have no sound system, so you have to listen carefully as Dr. Anne Nulte ends her brief talk, pointing out that the drug companies do not fully disclose the dangers of hormonal birth control pills. Then the facilitator of the event, Fr. Augustino, CFR, suggests the crowd sing "Amazing Grace."

 

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound ...

Planning starts for Rally against HHS Mandate attack on religious freedom and conscience

First plan is for March 23rd, nationwide.

Stand up for Religious Freedom

More information as it becomes available.

Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren: "I'd rather go to jail than obey mandate"

Rick Warren is the author of the worldwide best seller The Purpose Driven Life and Pastor of Saddleback Church.

He gave the invocation at the Obama inauguration.

Here's Warren's commentary on the HHS mandate -

“I’m not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure,” Warren said. “I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29.”

Richard Land, a pro-life leader who is a top official with the South Baptist Church, said the same thing the day prior.

“When it comes to abortifacients, and many birth-control methods are abortifacients,” Land said, this mandate is “reprehensible in its demands for people to violate their conscience.” “We are not going to do this. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of conscience, and we’re going to defend it. If we have to defend it by going to jail, so be it.”

Rev. Matthew Harrison is another Protestant leader who is opposed to the mandate.

“We have a full-tilt assault on religion, especially full creedal Christians, right now,” he said. “This is a fundamental attack on the Roman Catholic Church’s ability to be in the public square, being in partnership with the government providing for the needy.”

He says the “ultimate goal is to drive religious people out of public life in this nation and out of the reception of any kind of funding or partnership with government for good in society.”

Harrison is 100% right!

The Administration launches a direct attack on Catholic - and other - Churches, and on the primacy of conscience

UPDATE: Even the normally Democratic Party lap dog National Catholic Reporter (NCR) is outraged. NCR - UPDATED: White House refuses to expand conscience exemption

Mandates that contraceptives and abortifacients must be provided in employer health plans with no opt out for conscientious objection.

This is from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                             JANUARY 20, 2012

 

U.S. BISHOPS VOW TO FIGHT HHS EDICT

 

Unconscionable to force citizens to buy contraceptives against their will

No change in limited exemption, only delay in enforcement

Matter of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion

 

WASHINGTON—The Catholic bishops of the United States called “literally unconscionable” a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients  and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.

            “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

            The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.  It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

            The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception – including controversial abortifacients – be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.

            At issue, the U.S. bishops and other religious leaders insist, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans.

            “This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights,” said Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals. “I have hundreds of employees who will be upset and confused by this edict. I cannot understand it at all.”

            Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, voiced disappointment with the decision. Catholic hospitals serve one out of six people who seek hospital care annually.

            “This was a missed opportunity to be clear on appropriate conscience protection,” Sister Keehan said.

            Cardinal-designate Dolan urged that the HHS mandate be overturned.

            “The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,” he said. “The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision.”

---

First Amendment, heath care, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Freedom of Conscience, U.S. bishops, United States Conference of Catholic bishops, President Obama, Sister Carol Keehan

# # # # #

New video from Catholicvote.org

Religious freedom

 

Pro-life win in Europe: conscience protections upheld for healthcare workers

This is from the Irish website, Faith & Life

A concerted effort to force European doctors to perform abortions in violation of their consciences has been comprehensively defeated at the Council of Europe.

Addressing the Assembly, Senator Mullen reminded the members that the rights of unborn children are recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. He pointed out that “[t]here is no such thing as a human right to abortion, nor has any text ever indicated such a right. However, it is a basic principle of human rights law that all human beings without exception have a range of rights including that of conscientious objection.”

Addressing Mrs McCafferty, Senator Mullen said, “I will support you when you seek measures to support women who are unhappily pregnant, so that they do not feel that their only option is abortion. I will take the lead, speaking as a man and as a legislator, in ensuring that our societies are welcoming and supportive at all times. But what I cannot do is join you in what is, in effect, the furtherance of a pro-abortion agenda, because, contrary to what it claims, the report is not about ensuring that all women receive necessary medical care in pregnancy.”

He drew attention to the fact that those consulted in the preparation of the report are self-confessed abortion advocates. The Senator concluded by referring to the increasing reluctance of doctors to involve themselves with abortion. “That is why I suggest that this report has been produced. Instead of smelling the cultural coffee, Mrs McCafferty and her allies are seeking to batten down the hatches and create internationally binding obligations, even as people in individual societies are becoming more uncomfortable about abortion and seeking more life-affirming alternatives.”

The final resolution urged that “No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.”

In the end, McCafferty and other pro-abortion members voted against the amended report rather than affirm life and fundamental human rights. Among those lobbying for a clampdown on freedom of conscience were the pro-abortion groups Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and ‘Catholics’ for Choice.

In California, important legal case developing over health care providers who refuse to perform abortions

The state of California is seeking to invalidate a federal law which seeks to protect institutions and caregivers who refuse to participate in abortions. This law is of major importance to. amongst others, the Catholic healthcare system in California.

Court Rules Pro-Life Groups Can Join Abortion Conscience Clause Case

Excerpts:

President Bush signed a federal spending bill with a provision sponsored by pro-life Reps. Henry Hyde and Dave Weldon saying the federal government can't discriminate against doctors, hospitals or health insurance companies that do not want to perform or pay for abortions.

Any federal, state or local agency that receives federal money would lose those funds if they engage in such discrimination.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against the law in January 2005 and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the two pro-life groups can join in defending the law.

The court ruled the Alliance for Catholic Health Care and the Medical Groups, which represents health organizations opposing abortion, can help the federal government defend the provision in the case.

According to a Reuters report, it said the groups can participate because medical providers will be forced to choose between their moral beliefs and losing their jobs or medical licenses.

"Congress passed the Weldon Amendment precisely to keep doctors who have moral qualms about performing abortions from being put to the hard choice of acting in conformity with their beliefs, or risking imprisonment or loss of professional livelihood," Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for a three-judge panel of the appellate court.

Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar condemned the decision in an interview with Reuters.

"Regardless of who is to intervene in this case, the Weldon Amendment remains an unconstitutional infringement of California's sovereignty as well as a threat to the reproductive health care rights of the state's women," she claimed.

Weldon previously told the Sacramento Bee newspaper that his amendment "in no way infringes" on a woman's right to an abortion. Instead, Weldon said in a statement, it only says "you can't force the unwilling" to perform them.

"Mr. Lockyer seems anxious to preserve California's right to coerce such unwilling providers into performing abortions," Weldon said.

The California-based Alliance for Catholic Health Care represents nine Catholic health care systems that operate 59 Catholic and community-based affiliated hospitals. Together, Catholic health care providers comprise over 15 percent of California's hospitals.