posted May 22, 2012 10:53 AM            

Catholic groups launch massive lawsuit against ObamaCare
Religion once again stands on the front lines of liberty
John Hayward
05/21/2012

LifeNews reports on a powerful new legal challenge to ObamaCare, launched by groups that have been given ample reason to take up arms against it:

Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and dozens of Catholic hospitals and organizations have filed a total of 12 lawsuits today against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Obama administration over the controversial HHS mandate.

The lawsuit challenges the Obama administration’s unprecedented mandate that attacks the freedom to practice religion without government interference. Under the HHS mandate, employers must provide insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, as well as contraceptives and sterilization procedures.

Franciscan University maintains that the requirement to fund and facilitate such activities violates its core religious and moral convictions as a Catholic university.

“Franciscan University’s mission is and always has been to teach from the heart of the Church,” said University President Father Terence Henry, TOR. “The Obama administration’s mandate is a grave threat to our ability to carry out that mission. It makes it impossible for us to operate freely as a Catholic institution without overbearing and invasive governmental interference.”

Father Henry touches upon a point commonly obscured by the fashionable leftist tendency to paint religious organizations as budding theocracies, forever fiddling with the laces on their jackboots. They never seem to slip those jackboots on and stomp anyone, do they? No American religious organization of the modern era has ever been able to impose its will upon nonbelievers in a manner approaching the way Barack Obama imposed his will upon them.

Even the most commonly cited “sinister” item on the Religious Right’s agenda, repeal of Roe v. Wade, would throw the question of abortion back to the states… precisely the way President Obama now claims we should deal with the question of marriage. Would some elements of the pro-life coalition like to go further, and pass national laws outlawing abortion? Sure, but success in that effort would be fantastically difficult. It’s so remote from anything occurring in our current political discourse that any analysis of the effort would be purely speculative. Social conservatives are always getting castigated for what they might do someday.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare’s assault on economic and religious liberty is happening right now. The expansion of government necessarily involves the loss of individual liberty; the State consumes everything else as it grows. Every new book of regulations is a list of things we are no longer allowed to do… or, perhaps even more troubling, a list of things we must do.

Far from serving as incubators of domination and control, American religious institutions have always found themselves on the front lines in the battle for liberty – from the Revolution and Civil War, through the civil rights movement. They are exemplars of a concept crucial to our Constitutional understanding of freedom, and entirely poisonous to central planners: the existence of a power higher than the State, which is the source of rights the State cannot take away. No particular religious belief is necessary to embrace humility, the crucial virtue that separates a prosperous and lawful Republic from a socialist basket case.

The absolute rights of individuals are not, by definition, subject to review and suspension by the State. It doesn’t matter if the State has really good intentions. It makes no difference if a vocal minority, or even an absolute majority, of the people offer their support for suspension of a core liberty. It doesn’t matter if respect for that liberty proves inconvenient. No pile of expert “studies” should be heavy enough to crush one of our Constitutional rights. There is a point at which compulsion must end, and locating it cannot be a matter of political expediency. Liberty is incompatible with the notion of a government that can draw its own boundaries, and redraw them whenever popular resistance against its appetite for power flags a little.

It’s not surprising that religious institutions sound early warnings against encroachments upon liberty. Not only do they expound upon the existence of powers higher than the government, but they assert prerogatives that can seem irrational to those outside the faith… and therefore easily trampled. Why are those Catholic fuddy-duddies refusing to pay for other people’s birth control? That stuff’s expensive, and “everybody knows” it’s essential to public health!

Besides, didn’t our betters already carve out a generous exemption for churches? The LifeNews report addresses this topic:

When first proposed in August 2011 by the Department of Health and Human Services, the mandate was met by strong objections from numerous Catholic bishops, hospitals, and institutions. Although a small exemption for some religious institutions was written into the original proposal, it was too narrow to cover the vast majority of them, particularly those, like Catholic universities, which both employ and serve people of other faiths or no faith at all. The mandate effectively puts the federal government in the position of deciding which organizations are “religious enough,” the lawsuits claim.
(Emphasis mine.)

True liberty is not a dispensation, to be handed out at the government’s pleasure. Power is not limited when the powerful get to decide when their “limits” are valid. Perhaps these new lawsuits will emphasize a point that should have been crystal clear all along: no one, of either political party, should have been willing to sign a law that would proactively force American citizens to do something that violates their conscience.

posted May 22, 2012 11:28 AM            

This is somewhat surprising given Notre Dame's notoriously liberal faculty and administration, but it highlights how much a threat to religious liberty the HHS decision on contraception truly is.

The University of Notre Dame filed a lawsuit Monday (May 21) challenging the constitutionality of a federal regulation that requires religious organizations to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate insurance coverage for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the lawsuit names as defendants Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and their respective departments.

The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching. It also authorizes the government to determine which organizations are sufficiently "religious" to warrant an exemption from the requirement.

Notre Dame's lawsuit charges that these components of the regulation are a violation of the religious liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal laws.

"This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives," Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame's president, wrote in a message to members of the campus community. "For if we concede that the government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions."

Good for Rev. Jenkins. He recognizes the inherent danger - slippery slope - that HHS wants religious communities to tread. The fact that a respected institution known for its "diversity" and liberal positions on social issues would take this step is significant to the cause of religious freedom.

posted May 22, 2012 12:15 PM            

quote:

---

The problem with Socialists is that they just won't leave other people alone to pursue their own beliefs and happiness

---

Like, for instance, they won't allow two men to marry each other?
This morning I felt the need for a nice cold glass of raw milk. Too bad it's illegal to buy and sell in my state. Those damn Socialists at the FDA have all but classified it a terrorist weapon.

posted May 22, 2012 12:55 PM            

Incidentally, religious institutions are already working in this legal atmosphere in 28 states. Only 8 of those states exempt Catholic hospitals and universities.

posted May 23, 2012 10:22 AM            

shura, here's the oldest biblical record of "marriage"..and it's purpose..from Genesis 2:24. Let's not try to upset the natural order of the universe, hmmm!

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Yeah, we used to have raw milk delivered to our home by Alta Dena Dairy when we lived in Southern California. Nothing like an ice cold glass of raw milk but the damned meddling bureaucrats put a stop to that.

acoustic, that's one of the silliest things you've said here. Of course O'Bomber's war on religion affects the way the Catholic and other church(es) conduct their schools, hospitals, etc....if they must purchase insurance policies with provisions for birth control, morning after..abortion pills..which directly contravene their religious teaching and beliefs.

posted May 23, 2012 12:27 PM            

quote:

---

birth control, morning after..abortion pills..which directly contravene their religious teaching and beliefs.

---

posted May 23, 2012 12:38 PM            

we are ruled by our government
corruptly..

the motto for New Hampshire

is

Live Free or Die!

what a joke!!!

posted May 23, 2012 12:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You're going to have to do better than that in rebuttal I'm afraid. Nothing the government has put into law violates a person's ability to practice their religion.

These may contravene their beliefs, but if you're practicing the religion correctly you wouldn't be using any of these, would you? You wouldn't ask for them, or insist upon them. If you were PRACTICING YOUR RELIGION faithfully, these things would never come into play. Catholics being forced to facilitate such things will only show Catholics how many of their followers aren't really practicing their religion. It's merely an inconvenience for them.

---

posted May 23, 2012 01:03 PM            

Why can't you get those facts through your head?

Here acoustic, let me reproduce the very first part of the very first Amendment for you. It's obvious neither you or O'Bomber have ever read it..or have a clue what it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

So acoustic, it's Congress which "shall make no law" and Congress did "make" such a law. And Congress did prohibit the "free exercise of religion" by requiring religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own religion and religious beliefs. That's all that's necessary to get this pile of crap known as O'BomberCare declared unconstitutional.

To that end, a slew of federal lawsuits have been filed having nothing to do with federal mandates to purchase health insurance per se.

posted May 23, 2012 02:18 PM            

If you polled Catholic doctors at these institutions on whether they'd prefer to keep their jobs and administer birth control, or whether they would quit their jobs on moral grounds before they'd ever administer birth control, I'd wager at least nine of ten would administer birth control rather than change careers.

Non-medical institutions are free to not offer health insurance if they feel it violates their morals. It just means their employees will get the same benefit elsewhere.

posted May 23, 2012 04:56 PM            

Another specious argument from you acoustic.

It only takes ONE person or ONE institution whose rights are violated under an act of government for that act to be unconstitutional.

posted May 23, 2012 05:00 PM            

Well, people did not get an education. That is why O'Bomber gets away with this horse do do.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 23, 2012 05:37 PM            

quote:

---

It only takes ONE person or ONE institution whose rights are violated under an act of government for that act to be unconstitutional.

---

You continue to be unqualified to assess what is or is not Constitutional.

At this point, I wonder if you can even lay out your own argument with regard to this topic. Thus far you haven't said much using your own words.

Frankly, this is just the latest in a series of religious liberty versus civil equality suits. Every court that's ruled in favor of gay marriage, as Shura so aptly brought up, has ruled in favor of equality, and conversely all opposed have ruled in favor of religious liberty. I'll go ahead and guess on your behalf that you're not particularly interested in equality (I think that philosophy bears out in most of the arguments you've made here over the years). Equality is certainly another cornerstone of our Constitution.

posted May 23, 2012 05:55 PM            

The ruling will come down on O'BomberCare in late June. If O'BomberCare isn't declared unconstitutional by the Supremes, that slew of suits filed by religious institutions will find their way to the Supreme Court over time.

This has nothing to do with "equality" under the law acoustic.

posted May 23, 2012 06:57 PM            

quote:

---

This has nothing to do with "equality" under the law acoustic.

---

It so obviously does I can't believe you're attempting to say this. If everyone is going to have health insurance, and if everyone is entitled to birth control under such health insurance, it would be discrimination for some people to have the benefit under the law while others don't.

quote:

---

Further, you're full of crap. Almost everything I've said on this issue have been in my own words, which are directly on point.

---

That's not true. You've expressed very wide platitudes with very little meat, and you've posted articles with presumably more meat.

quote:

---

Sorry you're not intellectually competent to grasp the significance of the concepts or the issues involved in the laws or the Constitution.

---

posted May 23, 2012 11:33 PM            

quote:

---

shura, here's the oldest biblical record of "marriage"..and it's purpose..from Genesis 2:24. Let's not try to upset the natural order of the universe, hmmm!

---

How is this relevant? Not every citizen is a Christian, jwhop, and of that percentage that are, not everyone will interpret the Bible in the same manner as you have. Have you developed a recent aversion to the First Amendment?

quote:

---

Yeah, we used to have raw milk delivered to our home by Alta Dena Dairy when we lived in Southern California. Nothing like an ice cold glass of raw milk but the damned meddling bureaucrats put a stop to that.

---

Meddling bureaucrats at the behest of their corporate overlords.

posted May 24, 2012 01:53 PM            

perhaps we should return to the laws of leviticus to prove how holy we are!?

Bats are just unclean birds. 11:13,19

Four-legged birds are an abomination to God. 11:20

Insects have four legs. 11:21, 23

Baby girls are twice as dirty as baby boys. 12:1-8

God's cure for leprosy. 14:2-32

What to do if "he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean." 15:8

What to do "if any man's seed of copulation go out from him." 15:16-18

Menstruating women are unclean to God. 15:19-30

God's law for wet dreams. 15:16-17, 32

Don't look at any naked menstruating women. 18:19

Homosexuality is an abomination to God. 18:22

Don't mix seeds when sowing a field or wear a garment with mixed fibers. 19:19

If you have sex with a slave woman, you must then scourge her. 19:20

Don't round the corners of your head or mar the corners of your beard. 19:27

Children who curse their parents, adulterers, and homosexuals must be killed. 20:9-12

Woman with "familiar spirits" must be stoned to death. 20:27

The unchaste daughters of priests must be burnt to death. 21:9

Handicapped people must not approach the altar. 21:16-23

God's instructions for buying slaves. 25:45-46

"Ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it." 26:16

God will "send wild beasts among you, which shall rob your of your children." 26:22

"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." 26:29

God places a dollar value on human life; women are worth less (50 - 60%) than men. 27:3-7

posted May 24, 2012 02:05 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 24, 2012 02:14 PM            

Yeah Ami..."the bible doesn't say a wife has to be a female" Huh! Duh! Right! Check!

posted May 24, 2012 02:20 PM            

Meet my husband, Mr Goat. Do you want to have the kids for dinner

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 24, 2012 02:24 PM            

Woman, this is so smart!

I'm a contrary. ...

posted May 24, 2012 02:43 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal