57 replies to this topic

[Great Ape]

Notre Dame, Catholic Groups Suing Obama Administration Over Birth Control Mandate

The Huffington Post | may 21, 2012

NEW YORK — Roman Catholic leaders opened a new front against the Obama administration mandate that employers provide workers birth control coverage, filing federal lawsuits Monday on behalf of dioceses, schools and health care agencies that argued the requirement violates religious freedom.

Among the plaintiffs is the University of Notre Dame, which in February had praised President Barack Obama for pledging to accommodate religious groups and find a way to soften the rule. Notre Dame president, the Rev. John Jenkins, said the school had since decided to sue because "progress has not been encouraging" in talks with administration officials.

The lawsuits have been filed in eight states and the District of Columbia by the Archdioceses of Washington and New York, the Michigan Catholic Conference, Catholic Charities in Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri and Indiana, health care agencies in New York and two dioceses in Texas.

"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress, and we'll keep at it, but there's still no fix," said New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."

Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department, said Monday the agency does not comment on pending litigation. The liberal advocacy group Catholics United accused the bishops of serving a "right-wing political agenda."

Health and Human Services adopted the mandate to improve health care for women. Last year, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies.

However, many leaders across faith traditions and political ideology argued that the mandate's exception for religious groups was too narrow. The original rule generally allowed churches and other houses of worship to opt out, but kept the requirement in place for religiously affiliated nonprofits, including hospitals, colleges and charities.

The political furor caught the administration by surprise. In response, Obama offered to soften the rule so that insurers would pay for birth control instead of religious groups. However, the bishops and others have said that the accommodation, which is still under discussion, doesn't go far enough to protect religious freedom. An Obama administration official said the rule was still under discussion with religious leaders.

The lawsuits are the latest in the intensifying standoff between Roman Catholic bishops and the Obama administration during this election year.

The bishops plan a national campaign for religious freedom in the two weeks leading up to the July Fourth holiday. Last week, Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl lambasted Georgetown University, a Jesuit school, for inviting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to make a graduation speech. Sebelius, who defended religious freedom in her talk, was named as a defendant in the lawsuits Monday, along with her agency and others.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm, had previously filed four other federal lawsuits challenging the mandate on behalf of religious schools and others. Still, observers had been closely watching for Notre Dame's next step.

The university, dubbed the Catholic Harvard, in the past indicated willingness to work with Obama, despite his support for abortion rights. Notre Dame came under unprecedented criticism from U.S. bishops and others in 2009 for inviting Obama as commencement speaker and presenting him with an honorary law degree.

In February, when Obama responded to the complaints of religious leaders about the mandate, Jenkins said in a statement that, "we applaud the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties."

On Monday, Jenkins said, "although I do not question the good intentions and sincerity of all involved in these discussions, progress has not been encouraging."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is not a plaintiff in the lawsuits. Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, whose diocese is among those suing the government, said the law firm Jones Day was handling the lawsuits pro bono nationally.

[Source]

A group of Roman Catholic leaders and institutions sued the Obama administration over the federal mandate to provide birth control to employees, saying it violated religious freedom. Gwen Ifill and The Wall Street Journal's Janet Adamy discuss the lawsuit.

What more do they want? President Obama has already compromised by making insurance companies responsible for providing contraception to Catholic employees. Catholic institutions do not have to provide contraception directly to the employee.

I could understand it, if, Catholic institutions such as hospitals and universities, only hired Catholics. But they don't. Many of their employees are non Catholics and they have a right to contraception if they want it. The catholic employees are not being forced to use contraception. It is only being made available to them if they want it.

It just seems like much ado about nothing. OK, the Catholic Church claims their first amendment right is being violated, but I just don't see it. They are free to practice their religion and no one is forcing Catholics to use contraception. Which is pretty funny really, since a recent Guttmacher research report found 98 percent of sexually-active Catholic women said they have used artificial forms of birth control — like the pill or condoms. Go figure.

Why is the HRCC so against birth control? Good question. Here is why, according to Dr. Heaney, a philosophy professor at the University of St. Thomas and Jim Laine, Director of the religious studies program at Macalester College.

“The church doesn’t think it’s wrong for Catholics to use contraception, the Church thinks it’s wrong to use contraception,” said Dr. Steve Heaney, a philosophy professor at University of St. Thomas who serves on several boards and advises the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

“So when we put things into our bodies, or snip parts out to make them not work right, we’re attacking ourselves. Not just our bodies — ourselves,” said Heaney.

The Catholic Church essentially stands alone on this policy, with most other Christian churches allowing at least some types of artificial birth control in some circumstances starting in the 1930′s.

Catholic popes have always been opposed to anything other than natural birth control, whenever the Popes have spoken on the topic.

It doesn’t come out of the Bible, rather, “It’s a philosophical tradition known as natural law,” said Jim Laine, Director of the religious studies program at Macalester College. Laine said he’s also a Catholic.

“Natural law suggests any conjugal act, any sexual act, should be open to the transmission of life,” said Laine.

Basically, the theory is that God made our human bodies with parts that are designed to create life, and so having sexual intercourse and artificially blocking that process is wrong.

[Source]

What a load of bullshit eh? There is no rule against using contraception in the bible? This is a man made law posing as natural law?

I think it's time the HRCC pulled its head out of its ass and joined the 21st century.

[Ungodly]

"Tax the churches. Tax the businesses owned by the churches."
--Frank Zappa

[Great Ape]

"The only difference between a cult and a religion, is the amount of real estate they own." --Frank Zappa

[Ungodly]

I think it's time the HRCC pulled its head out of its ass and joined the 21st century.

I was hoping a half dozen billion people might quit their ties to this evil corporation first, and then it would go out of business and their Pseudonation/City could be returned to Italy as a tourist attraction.

Imagine how nice it would be to tour the former headquarters of the most evil corporation on Earth. If I went I'd likely have a fatal overdose of schadenfreude.

[Cousin Ricky]

Basically, the theory is that God made our human bodies with parts that are designed to create life, and so having sexual intercourse and artificially blocking that process is wrong.

By this logic, the pope violates natural law every morning when he shaves his face. Yet, somehow, he isn't violating Catholic law.

So-called "natural law" is Catholic law. It is the HRCC that has unilaterally declared that such-and-such a law should apply to non-catholics. No non-Catholics were consulted on this.

The HRCC is not seeking religious freedom for itself. It is seeking religious tyranny over everyone else.

Edited by Cousin Ricky, 22 May 2012 - 04:57 PM.

[Joe Bloe]

The HRCC is not seeking religious freedom for itself. It is seeking religious tyranny over everyone else.

If you don't mind Cousin Ricky, I'll be using that one in the future.

[Cousin Ricky]

If you don't mind Cousin Ricky, I'll be using that one in the future.

This goes for the non-Catholic theocrats as well.

[Great Ape]

The HRCC is not seeking religious freedom for itself. It is seeking religious tyranny over everyone else.

[Great Ape]

Obama Birth Control Mandate: Catholic Bishops Divided On Legal Battle

The Huffington Post | May 23, 2012

NEW YORK (RNS) The wave of lawsuits filed this week by more than 40 Catholic groups against the Obama administration's birth control mandate was meant as a demonstration of church unity and influence in the face of what some bishops see as a grave threat to the church's very existence.

But the strategy has also exposed serious fault lines within the U.S. hierarchy, as some leaders are privately and even openly questioning the legal and political ramifications of the bishops' latest battle with the White House.

The first public sign of the internal split came on Tuesday (May 22), a day after 43 Catholic dioceses, universities and other church institutions filed a dozen lawsuits around the country seeking to overturn a policy from the Department of Health and Human Services that requires employers or their insurance companies to provide free contraceptive coverage to employees.

In an interview with America magazine, a national weekly published by the Jesuits, Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., warned that "there is a concern among some bishops that there ought to have been more of a wider consultation" regarding overall strategy before such aggressive legal action was taken.

Blaire, a leading spokesman on social justice issues as head of the domestic policy committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, worried that the confrontational approach taken by the bishops was being exploited by political groups "very far to the right" who are trying to use the conflict with the White House as "an anti-Obama campaign."

"I think there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into political issue, and that's why we need to have a deeper discussion as bishops," said Blaire, who reiterated that he opposes the contraception mandate and fully supported efforts to defend the church's religious liberty.

The entire U.S. hierarchy is to meet in Atlanta in June for its annual spring meeting, and Blaire and others have suggested the lawsuits could have waited until after that meeting.

Blaire cited a number of other concerns about the legal strategy, including that plaintiffs could lose. That already happened in 2004, when the California Supreme Court upheld a mandate much like the one proposed by Obama's HHS. If the current plaintiffs lose in a federal case before the U.S. Supreme Court, that could enshrine the principal they oppose as a judicial precedent.

Another problem noted by Blaire, and one that several bishops have privately lamented, is that different bishops and conservative activists are citing different rationales for opposing the mandate: some see the fight as a defense of religious freedom, others say it is about protecting individual consciences, and still others object to the mandate as promoting birth control and sexual license.

Some of those claims are weaker than others, and Blaire said some could feed into the "war on women" meme. He also said they might detract from ongoing efforts to craft an acceptable accommodation with the White House, but above all they represent a failure by the bishops to act in unison to achieve an agreed upon goal.

Even before Blaire made his comments there were indications that the legal approach promoted by many bishops and Catholic conservatives was not as widely embraced as its promoters made it seem.

Just 13 of the nearly 200 U.S. dioceses signed onto the suit. Moreover, while the staff of the Washington-based USCCB was "facilitating and coordinating" Monday's lawsuits, the bishops' public policy arm did not join the suits. Neither did a number of bishops who have been sharply critical of Obama, such as Chicago Cardinal Francis George, who explained that the archdiocese "is still in the process of working out how it might best initiate or join any legal action."

Perhaps the most important player in the lawsuits filed Monday was the University of Notre Dame, which had angered many bishops by granting Obama an honorary degree in 2009. Yet even Notre Dame's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, sounded more rueful than triumphal when he said the school "filed this lawsuit neither lightly nor gladly, but with sober determination."

Privately, several bishops and Catholic leaders had already been questioning the USCCB's headlong charge against the contraception mandate.

They worried that the campaign -- which is built around a "Fortnight of Freedom" promotion that concludes with church services on July 4 -- appears to ally the hierarchy with the Republican Party, and also detracts from a number of other concerns like poverty and immigration.

The lawsuits filed this week prompted a fresh round of behind-the-scenes complaints that emerged in a more diplomatic form in Blaire's interview.

For years, conservatives have held the upper hand in the USCCB while moderates and more progressive-minded prelates, fearing a rebuke from Rome, held their tongues. But some believe that an overreach on the contraception campaign may be shifting that dynamic.

"It was only a matter of time before some of the less arch among the bishops went public with their concerns the way conservative bishops did in previous times when they thought the conference was too moderate," church analyst Michael Sean Winters wrote in the National Catholic Reporter on Wednesday.

"This is the dam that was waiting to be broken, and Blaire's comments broke it."

[Source]

Bishop Blaire is correct in thinking this issue is being exploited by the "very far to the right" who are trying to use the conflict against the White House.

My hope, is that the United States Supreme Court upholds President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), in its entirety. Which would pretty much make these lawsuits frivolous.

Edited by Great Ape, 24 May 2012 - 06:09 AM.

[Great Ape]

The Catholic contraception-mandate mega-lawsuit: A guide

The Week | May 22, 2012

On Monday, 43 Catholic organizations filed 12 federal lawsuits seeking to overturn the Obama administration's recent mandate that most employer-provided health insurance cover birth control and sterilization. The plaintiffs include several dioceses, social services providers, and educational institutions, but the biggest surprise was the participation of the University of Notre Dame, one of America's top Catholic colleges. What's this mega-lawsuit about? Here, a brief guide:

Who exactly is participating in the lawsuit?

Along with Notre Dame, parties to the 12 suits include 13 dioceses — among them the archdioceses of New York, Washington, D.C., and St. Louis — Catholic University, the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, and several Catholic schools and local Catholic Charities branches. Notable groups sitting the suit out are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which tells Commonweal that its "concerns are addressed in the lawsuits that were filed," and the Catholic Health Association (CHA), which is still in negotiations with the Obama administration.

And what is the fight over?

There are at least two issues that have the Catholic institutions up in arms. First: Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities will have to include copay-free birth control in their health insurance offerings, in violation of the church's (widely ignored) ban on contraception. The U.S. Catholic bishops rejected the Obama compromise — insurance will pay for the birth control, not the institutions — because some groups self-insure, and the rest still have to "facilitate" activities they see as "intrinsically immoral." The second issue is the Obama administration's decision to treat Catholic institutions separately than parishes and dioceses, which are exempt from the mandate.

What do the plaintiffs want?

The coordinated lawsuits ask federal courts to say that the contraception rules violate religious institutions' First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But some of the universities and all of the dioceses are already exempt, says Grant Gallicho at Commonweal. Why "sue now over a mandate that won't affect them and won't go into effect for another 15 months"? Obviously, says Elizabeth Scalia at Patheos, "they understand that, 'exempt' or not, 'accommodated' or not, the government is fundamentally overstepping its bounds with this mandate." This is about "religious freedom," and "that matters. A whole lot."

Why file suit now?

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York says "time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now." That's "nonsense," says Commonweal's Gallicho. The hospitals and charities and universities have until August 2013 — "why sue before exhausting all other options?" Sadly, it seems that "many bishops seem to want this fight," says E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post. It's "looking more and more like a direct intervention in this fall's elections," with Obama being unfairly painted as "an enemy of religious freedom."

Why did Notre Dame join?

The university's president, Fr. John Jenkins, gave the same reasons as the other plaintiffs, minus "the vitriol and hyperbole," says Michael Sean Winters at National Catholic Reporter. He insists this isn't about contraception, which many faculty and students "have made conscientious decisions to use," but about "the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission." It's also about deftly "playing political football," says NCR's Ken Briggs. Jenkins is taking steps to "win the cheers of bishops who remain resentful of the university's awarding of an honorary degree to President Obama in 2009."

Will this affect the presidential election?

It certainly may be "a 'come to Jesus' moment for many Catholics," and could even "cast Catholics off from the Democratic Party for a generation," says Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Not so fast, says Michael O'Brien at MSNBC. The latest Gallup poll has Romney and Obama tied among Catholics, each with 46 percent. Will Romney try to use the contraception mandate to chip away at Obama's Catholic supporters? Yes, he's already trying. But predicting the "Catholic vote" is "a fool's errand."

[Source]

While the HRCC might label this as a fight to protect religious freedom, I think it is nothing more than an attempt to interfere in the political process of the United States and influence the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

I think there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into a political issue. I call right wing shenanigans!

Edited by Great Ape, 25 May 2012 - 06:34 AM.

[Joe Bloe]

While the HRCC might label this as a fight to protect religious freedom, I think it is nothing more than an attempt to interfere in the political process of the United States and influence the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

And that's just the beginning.



The church wants total control of everything. If they get everything the want regarding marriage and contraception, they will immediately start a new campaign - no sport on Sunday perhaps, or one hour of free TV time for the Catholic church every week - and when they get those things, they'll come up with something else. It will never end. In future centuries, when overpopulation becomes a problem, the church will be fighting for compulsory contraception. Whatever the situation, they will be making demands about it.

[Great Ape]

And that's just the beginning.

The church wants total control of everything. If they get everything they want regarding marriage and contraception, they will immediately start a new campaign - no sport on Sunday perhaps, or one hour of free TV time for the Catholic church every week - and when they get those things, they'll come up with something else. It will never end. In future centuries, when overpopulation becomes a problem, the church will be fighting for compulsory contraception. Whatever the situation, they will be making demands about it.

I agree, religious fanatics can never be appeased. Give them an inch and they will demand a mile.

Another reason I think the HRCC is making a big stink out of this issue, is to deflect attention away from pedophile priests and the HRCC coverup of said priests scandal, that is rocking the HRCC to its core.






It certainly makes fine cover as a Vatican smoke screen.

Edited by Great Ape, 25 May 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Joe Bloe]

Another reason I think the HRCC is making a big stink out of this issue, is to deflect attention away from pedophile priests and the HRCC coverup of said priests scandal, that is rocking the HRCC to its core.

It's working too - the mugs in the pews are probably quite happy to talk about "immoral politicians" instead of "pedophile priests", and the mugs in the pews are the only ones the Pope needs to convince. He doesn't give a stuff what non-catholics think about him, as long as he can keep the flock in church and paying their tithes; that's all he wants.

[Great Ape]

It's working too - the mugs in the pews are probably quite happy to talk about "immoral politicians" instead of "pedophile priests", and the mugs in the pews are the only ones the Pope needs to convince. He doesn't give a stuff what non-catholics think about him, as long as he can keep the flock in church and paying their tithes; that's all he wants.

Yep, the Vatican only needs to convince the mugs in the pews as you say. The Church must maintain mind control over their sheeple and the tithes must keep coming into HRCC coffers. To do so the HRCC will lie, plead innocence, misdirect the sheeple and sweep all the scandals they possibly can under the carpet.

[Great Ape]

Poll: Catholics split on suit vs. White House

Politico | May 31, 2012

New York Catholics are sharply divided over the lawsuits filed by Catholic organizations opposed to the Obama Administration’s mandate on birth control, according to a new survey.
A new Quinnipiac poll shows that New York Catholics only approve of the lawsuit led by the state’s Archbishop, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, 51 percent to 45 percent.

Meanwhile, a majority of New York voters in general disapprove of the lawsuit, 55 percent to 38 percent.

This month, Dolan said that the Catholic Church feels “horror” over the nature of the religious exemption in the birth control mandate.

Dolan’s job performance is approved of by 38 percent of New Yorkers, while 25 percent disapprove; among the state’s Catholics, 63 percent approve while only 19 percent disapprove.

The Obama administration’s birth control mandate would require employers to include birth control coverage in employee health insurance plans. However, churches would be exempt from doing so.

For religious-affiliated organizations, like Catholic hospitals, the Obama administration has proposed a compromise that would force health insurance companies to pay for birth control services.

The Catholic Church has rejected this concept and Catholic organizations have filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration on the issue.

Many New Yorkers, however, thought the Catholic Church had become too deeply engaged with politics. Indeed, 43 percent of New York voters said that Catholic Church leaders had become “too involved” with politics, while 11 percent said it was “not involved enough” and 32 percent said it was “just about right.”

Catholics have a more charitable view towards the Church – 43 percent say its political involvement is “just about right,” with 33 percent saying its “too involved” and 17 percent saying its “not involved enough.”

The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted May 22-28, with a sample of 1,504 New York State voters a 2.5 percentage point margin of error.

[Source]

I'm betting after Cardinal Timothy Dolan is put on trial for covering up child molestation in the HRCC, New York Catholics (and everyone else for that matter) will have a much lower opinion of his job performance.

Edited by Great Ape, 31 May 2012 - 04:26 PM.

[Ungodly]

There will never be a Cardinal arrested for any crime in the USA, at least that's what I'd expect. As soon as you cross one of these power hungry criminals they will use every means at their disposal to crush you.

[Cousin Ricky]

There will never be a Cardinal arrested for any crime in the USA, at least that's what I'd expect. As soon as you cross one of these power hungry criminals they will use every means at their disposal to crush you.

That may be a bit pessimistic. Rumor has it that Cardinal Bernard Law will never again set foot in the USA, for fear of arrest.

[Ungodly]

That may be a bit pessimistic. Rumor has it that Cardinal Bernard Law will never again set foot in the USA, for fear of arrest.

I'll agree that was pessimistic, and it is certainly true that the Rat in a Hat rewarded Bernard Law for his stellar work obstructing justice and enabling child molesters. I do recall that rumors of Law's pending arrest were swirling all around when he got his big promotion to Make Believe City.

But of course he did get away, and he is safely ensconced in a criminal city/state, beyond the reach of decent people or real law enforcement.

So, OK, it could conceivably happen that an HRCC Cardinal would be arrested for one of his crimes, if it does happen I will be surprised.

[Great Ape]

So, OK, it could conceivably happen that an HRCC Cardinal would be arrested for one of his crimes, if it does happen I will be surprised.

Surprise! I took it upon myself to arrest the bastard.

Edited by Great Ape, 01 June 2012 - 09:47 AM.

[Great Ape]

Oklahoma Doctor Refuses To Provide Rape Victim With Emergency Contraception

Think Progress | May 31, 2012

An Oklahoma emergency room doctor refused to provide emergency contraception to a 24-year-old female rape victim because the medication violated the health provider’s personal beliefs, a local CBS News affiliate reports. The hospital also denied the victim a rape kit, noting that it had no appropriate nurse on staff to administer the test.

“I will not give you emergency contraceptives because it goes against my beliefs,” the doctor allegedly told the rape victim and her mother, Rhonda. “She knew my daughter had just been raped. Her attitude was so judgmental and I felt that she was just judging my daughter,” Rhonda told the news station.


Emergency contraception’s effectiveness diminishes over time, and is most effective when taken immediately. Oklahoma law, however, shields providers from offering the perfectly legal medication under a “conscience clause” which could significantly hinder women’s access to contraception services. States across the nation have adopted similar restrictions and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has pledged to expand Bush-era rules permitting doctors to place their beliefs ahead of women’s health.

[Source]

Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola discuss the story on The Young Turks.

This is a very good reason why contraception should be made available to everyone who wants it, regardless of what an employer or employee may think about contraception. There are other reasons too, such as women's health, planned parenthood, and the right of every woman to decide what happens to their bodies.

Edited by Great Ape, 02 June 2012 - 08:05 AM.