Catholic Bishop Stands His Ground on Obamacare Rule

From: CNS News

As many Americans start to enroll in the Obamacare health insurance exchanges on Oct. 1, the position of Bishop Paul S. Loverde, head of the Catholic diocese of Arlington, Va., on the law’s mandate that nearly all health insurance plans include contraception, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs without co-pays has not changed and is clear: “We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law.”

Bishop Loverde made that statement in a joint letter with Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of the Richmond Diocese to the Catholics of Virginia--some 700,000 of them--on Jan. 30, 2012. Bishop Loverde’s office confirmed this week that, given the mandate has not been changed or rescinded, the bishops’ position has not changed.

Back in March 2012, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) described the Obamacare rule as an “unjust and illegal mandate” that violates religious freedom under the First Amendment, and noted that it affects employers and nearly all individuals -- a “violation of personal civil rights.”


On the mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and contraception,” explained Bp. Loverde in the letter. “Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those ‘services’ in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.”

“In so ruling, the administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty,” said the bishop. “And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply [from 2012].”

“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law,” said Bp. Loverde.

“People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God-given rights.”

Drug Stores Roll Out Plan B, Put Policies in Place for Employees Who Morally Object to Abortifacients

Plan B One Step, which, as its label states, "works mainly by preventing ovulaiton (egg release)," as well as by preventing "attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation)." (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

The HHS mandate applies to nearly all individuals and employers in the United States, with a few exceptions for strictly religious persons or entities, such as a priest or pastor or a religious order. Individuals who object -- for moral, religious, or other reasons -- to paying for health insurance that provides contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs cannot opt-out. They must buy health insurance under the Obamacare law or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The law goes into fuller effect on Jan. 1, 2014. As mandated, people who do not get insurance through their employer or from the government (Medicaid, Medicare) are required to apply for coverage through the Obamacare health insurance exchanges starting on Oct. 1 of this year.

Back on March 20, 2013, the general counsel’s office at the USCCB submitted comments to the Department of Health and Human Services about the regulation. In the 23-page document, the lawyers for the USCCB explain that “the mandate is unchanged,” and that, “For reasons discussed more fully in our earlier comments, we believe the mandate should be rescinded.” (Read here: USCCB Comments to HHS.pdf)

In their conclusion, the USCCB general counsel’s office said, “In short, the [Obama] Administration continues to propose: (a) an unjust and unlawful mandate; [and] (b) no exemption or ‘accommodation’ at all for most stakeholders in the health insurance process, such as individual employees and for-profit employers ….”

In a videotaped statement posted on July 29, 2013, Bishop Loverde commented further on the HHS mandate, stating, “As Catholics, and with many others, we are seeking to protect religious liberty, which continues to be threatened by the current administration. The HHS mandate, unless repealed, will force employers, including Catholic organizations, and persons of conscience [individuals] to provide insurance that will include contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs. All of these procedures and drugs violate the dignity of the marital act, and in the case of the abortifacient drugs, attack life itself.”

He further said, “We must be free as Catholics, to not only worship God in our churches but also to practice and live the faith in the public square in the daily living of life. Therefore, we have the right to oppose any and all governmental coercive mandates that encroach upon religious liberty, and the responsibility to make clear that such policies violate our First Amendment freedom.”

“Yes, religious liberty is a serious issue. We must be involved in its defense,” said Bishop Loverde.

There are about 403,000 Catholics in the diocese of Arlington, which covers northern Virginia, near the nation’s capital, with 67 parishes. For the Richmond diocese, which covers central and southern Virginia, there are about 230,000 Catholics and 151 parishes (churches).

There are 78 million Catholics in the United States. In February 2012, all 181 Catholic bishops in the United States publicly denounced the Obamacare mandate as a violation of religious liberty under the First Amendment.

ishop Loverde made that statement in a joint letter with Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of the Richmond Diocese to the Catholics of Virginia--some 700,000 of them--on Jan. 30, 2012. Bishop Loverde’s office confirmed this week that, given the mandate has not been changed or rescinded, the bishops’ position has not changed - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/catholic-bishop-stands-his-ground-obamacare-rule-we-cannot-we-will#sthash.lLclqjpK.dpuf

As many Americans start to enroll in the Obamacare health insurance exchanges on Oct. 1, the position of  Bishop Paul S. Loverde, head of the Catholic diocese of Arlington, Va., on the law’s mandate that nearly all health insurance plans include contraception, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs without co-pays has not changed and is clear: “We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law.” - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/catholic-bishop-stands-his-ground-obamacare-rule-we-cannot-we-will#sthash.lLclqjpK.dpuf

As many Americans start to enroll in the Obamacare health insurance exchanges on Oct. 1, the position of  Bishop Paul S. Loverde, head of the Catholic diocese of Arlington, Va., on the law’s mandate that nearly all health insurance plans include contraception, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs without co-pays has not changed and is clear: “We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law.”
Bishop Loverde made that statement in a joint letter with Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of the Richmond Diocese to the Catholics of Virginia--some 700,000 of them--on Jan. 30, 2012. Bishop Loverde’s office confirmed this week that, given the mandate has not been changed or rescinded, the bishops’ position has not changed.
- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/catholic-bishop-stands-his-ground-obamacare-rule-we-cannot-we-will#sthash.lLclqjpK.dpuf

New Mexico Judge Rules Christian Photographers Must “Compromise their Religious Values” for Gay Wedding

From: FrontPage Magazine


The First Amendment. It was nice while it lasted, wasn’t it?

In 2006 Vanessa Willock asked Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography, to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” in the town of Taos.

Huguenin and her husband declined the job because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

Willock found another photographer at a cheaper price but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. She was later found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in fines.

“The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.

Bosson said the Christian photographers are now “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering,” he wrote. “It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”

Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.

Religious Gesture Disqualifies Texas Track Team from Competing in State Championship

Canada: Catholic bashing good, gay and Muslim bashing, bad (video)

No Deal! Bishops to Administration: You Can't Force Catholics to Act Against Faith

From: CNS News

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement on Thursday signaling to the Obama Administration that the bishops will not make a separate deal to exempt Catholic institutions from an Obamacare mandate that requires health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs that leaves lay Catholic business owners and individual employees still subject to the mandate.

“In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath,” said Cardinal Dolan. “We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.”

The cardinal said the bishops will also continue to support the many lawsuits against the regulation--including those brought by private busineses--that are moving forward in federal courts around the country.

The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic laypersons dedicated to advancing the principles of the Catholic Church, issued a statement supporting the bishops' stand in defending the religious freedom of all Americans.

“We stand with the bishops today in rejecting the proposed ‘accommodation’ which still violates the religious freedom of Americans," said The Catholic Association.

"The bishops have recognized in their statement that when the religious freedom of one is compromised, the religious freedom of everyone is compromised, whether they be their own affiliated institutions or non-Catholic institutions or for-profit employers," said the association. "We call on this administration to provide an acceptable exemption for people of faith, and to put an end to its anti-religious liberty policies.”

Cardinal Dolan's statement was specifically responding to a new version of the Obamacare regulation that the Department of Health and Human Services proposed last week. The new proposal would slightly modify how Obamacare defines the “religious” institutions that can be exempted from the sterilization-contraceptive-abortifacient mandate. However, the proposed new version of the regulation would still force Catholic non-profits (such as hospitals, charities and colleges) to buy health care plans from carriers that, in turn, would be required to set up theoretically cost-free separate policies to provide free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to all beneficiaries. Further, the new proposal would provide no relief at all to individual Catholic lay people, whether they own a business or are employees.

Cardinal Dolan noted that the bishops will continue to judge the Obamacare regulation within the framework they laid out in a document the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops initially published last March and that all U.S. Catholic bishops unanimously approved in June.

“Third, the bishops explained that the ‘HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all:individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said Cardinal Dolan, citing the bishops' unanimous declaration.

“This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it. Friday's action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this ‘third class.’”

Cardinal Dolan’s statement included some placatory language, and the bishops seemed to be taking care to indicate they were not yet closing the door to working with the administration to find an outcome that will allow American Catholics to live both according to their faith and according to whatever final Obamacare regulations the administration ultimately decides to enforce.

“Because the stakes are so high, we will not cease from our effort to assure that healthcare for all does not mean freedom for few,” said Cardinal Dolan.

“Throughout the past year, we have been assured by the Administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage," the Cardinal said. "We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge and to find acceptable solutions—we will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks. Thus, we welcome and will take seriously the Administration's invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all. At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary.”

In an analysis published last August, the National Catholic Bioethics Center said that in keeping with Catholic moral teaching all Catholic business owners should drop health insurance coverage for all of their employees by no later than next January if the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate is not lifted.

Last year, when the initial regulation was finalized, many of the nation’s Catholic bishops wrote letters to their congregations, declaring: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”

Oregon AG Investigates Baker's Refusal to Make Wedding Cake for Lesbians

From: CNS News

The Oregon attorney general’s office is investigating a Portland-area bakery after a lesbian couple filed a complaint alleging that the owner discriminated against them when he declined to make a wedding cake for their same-sex “marriage.”

Aaron Klein, who owns and operates Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery along with his wife in Gresham, Ore., said he received notice of the complaint last week from the Oregon Department of Justice.

The complaint stems from an incident which occurred Jan. 17, when a woman came in with her mother to test wedding cakes.

“I did my normal thing, where I asked what the bride-and-grooms’ first names were to write down on our wedding cake contract,” Klein told CNSNews.com.

“She – the girl – giggled a little bit and then informed me it was two brides. At which point, I looked up from my paper, and said, ‘I’m sorry. I hope I didn’t waste your time, but we don’t do same-sex marriages. We don’t believe it is right.”

Klein said the woman and her mother “looked at each other with a little bit of a disgusted look” and got up to leave.

“Ten minutes later the mother came back in and told me I got to say my piece and I have a right to my opinion, but she wanted to give me hers, or say her opinion, and I said, ‘OK, go ahead.

“She proceeded to tell me that she used to think like I did, then her daughter told her she was gay, and she realized that God had made her daughter that way. And disagreed with her. I told her the Bible doesn’t say that.

She told me that I needed to read my Bible, and I quoted Leviticus 20:13, at which point she told me I was wrong, and stormed out.”

Jeff Manning, communications director for Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, confirmed for CNSNews.com that the complaint, which had been filed by Laurel Bowman of Portland, was being investigated by the consumer protection division of the Oregon Department of Justice. (See Complaint)

According to the complaint, Bowman said that she and her fiancé purchased a wedding cake in November of 2011 for her mother’s wedding for $250.

“When we decided to get married ourselves we chose to go back and purchase a second cake,” the complaint stated.

“When asked dfor (sic) a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid $250 once and having done business in the past. We were informed that our money was equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable.”

Bowman could not be reached for this story.

Manning said that while Oregon does not sanction same-sex marriage, it is against Oregon law for “a public accommodation” to refuse to do business with a customer on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

The baker, meanwhile, told CNSNews.com that neither he nor his wife have been secretive about their beliefs, and that others have asked in the past if he makes cakes for same-sex weddings – without incident.

“Usually it starts out with questions – ‘Do you do same-sex wedding cakes?’ And we’ve always been really respectful about it and said, ‘No, it’s against our religious beliefs, and we just don’t do them.

Everybody up ‘till this point has been really understanding.”

Klein said he is merely standing up for his Christian beliefs.

“I believe that the Book of Genesis tells us, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife,’ and I believe that when it says a man and a woman, it means a man and a woman. I believe that that is the institution of marriage from the beginning of time, and it’s something God ordained. I don’t want to be a part of the redefinition of that in any way, shape or form.”

Mat Staver, president of religious-liberty law firm Liberty Counsel, told CNSNews.com that no one should be forced to violate their religious beliefs just to stay in the bakery business. But that constitutional principle is no longer a slam-dunk.

“I think, clearly someone who raises a religious rights objection clearly has a right to be able to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs, and in this case should not have to cater a same-sex wedding,” Staver told CNSNews.com.

“However, I do know that in many parts of the country where there is either a sexual orientation or gender identity non-discrimination law, or even worse, a state that sanctions same-sex marriage, that when religious freedom collides with the homosexual agenda, the homosexual agenda, typically has been winning and religious free exercise has been losing.”

According to the Oregon Department of Justice, the matter is currently at the preliminary stage.

HHS Mandate Revisions Will Force Religious Groups to Cover Abortions

From: LifeNews.com

On Friday, the Obama administration released proposed revisions to the controversial HHS mandate. The revisions offer no help for religious businesses, individuals or non-profit religious groups that don’t want to be forced to obey it.


A leading pro-life source on Capitol Hill provided an analysis to LifeNews about how the proposals play out.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the requirement that all insurance plans cover “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

The proposed rule is being issued in response to the many faith-based institutions and religious business owners that continue to object to this mandate on grounds that it forces them to violate their deeply held religious or moral objections to some or all such coverage – especially coverage that includes the morning-after pill (Plan B) or week-after pill (ella) that causes abortions.

“The proposed rule is open for comment until April 5, 2013.  However, it is extremely similar to proposals rejected by pro-life leaders in the past,” the source told LifeNews.
The proposed rule would:

• · Have NO impact on businesses run by people of faith, such as Tyndale House (a publisher of the Bible), Hobby Lobby and Hercules Industries. (If you would like fact sheets and background on each of the businesses that have filed suits against the mandate, please feel free to contact me or Allison Hines).
• · Provide NO options for individuals seeking plans that accommodate their values on the exchanges.
• · Continue to only apply the full exemption to churches and their auxiliary institutions. It appears that this narrow exemption will NOT apply to nonprofits like the University of Notre Dame, Wheaton College and Catholic Charities. Note: the exemption is modified so that it no longer specifies that churches must have inculcation of religious values as their purpose and primarily employ and serve people of their same faith. Even though those specifics are no longer listed, the exemption continues to apply only to a small category of entities (Churches, Integrated Auxiliaries, and Conventions or Associations of Churches).
• · Non-profit religious organizations will have to involuntarily comply with the mandate through a series of new requirements on insurance companies and third party administrators(in the case of self-insured plans). HHS refers to this as an accommodation, and will only make it available to a nonprofit entity that “holds itself out as a religious organization.” The arrangement will work as follows:
  • o Fully Insured Plans–In the case of a non-profit religious organization that indicates it opposes providing all or part of the mandated coverage, their insurance company will provide the coverage to the covered employees anyway through a “seamless process” under the justification that the coverage is actually free because it will reduce labor and delivery costs in the long run.
  • o Self-Insured Plans–In the case of a self-insured plan, the third party administrator will contract with another insurance company to provide the coverage, and the insurance company will be compensated by paying less in “Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees.”

Another leading source explained to LifeNews further about the mandate revisions.

The source said, “Due to a misleading press release from HHS and other factors, some media and others have thought that HHS has now substantially expanded its “religious employer” exemption from the mandate. They note that the old four-prong test for qualifying as a “religious employer” has now been reduced to just one prongs.”

“The Departments believe that this proposal would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules. As previously noted, when the Departments first defined religious employer, the primary goal was to exempt the group health plans of houses of worship. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) of the Code refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. By restricting the exemption primarily to group health plans established or maintained by churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship, and religious orders, the fourth prong of the current definition of religious employer would alone suffice to meet the goal.”

The pro-life source added, “So HHS dropped the other three prongs of the four-prong definition because it doesn’t need them. This one prong alone does roughly the same job.”

The changes are drawing strong condemnation from pro-life groups like Americans United for Life.

“With another phony compromise, the Obama Administration continues to insult the intelligence of the American people and trample our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights,” said AUL’s President Charmaine Yoest. “Our Freedom of Conscience, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment has been violated by Obamacare and these new regulations do not resolve the offense.”

 “The phony compromise from Health and Human Services only serves to illustrate the problem with Obamacare,” said Dr. Yoest. “The Obama Administration is trying to gerrymander the regulations but continues to leave most Americans without their Constitutional freedoms. The regulation is clear that the Obama Administration’s intent is to limit religious liberty to houses of worship. Meanwhile Christian universities, for-profit businesses – like the Bible publisher Tyndale and Hobby Lobby – or individuals are still forced to subsidize Big Abortion. The Obama Administration’s implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the First Amendment Conscience rights of Americans, and that must be stopped.”

'God' removed from student's poem

From: McDowellNews.com

A decision to remove the word “God” from a school program is causing a world of controversy for McDowell County Schools.

But a First Amendment expert said school officials made the right decision.

During Monday’s Board of Education meeting, two members of the public stepped forward to talk to board members about a First Amendment issue at West Marion Elementary.

McDowell County Schools employee Chris Greene and McDowell County resident Esther Dollarhyde each took a turn talking about West Marion Elementary’s Veterans Day program during the public comment portion of the meeting.

“On Nov. 8, 2012 West Marion held their annual Veterans Day program in the midst of a lot of drama,” Greene said. “We had one parent concerned with the use of the word God in this program. This parent did not want the word God mentioned anywhere in the program. When the demand from this person was heard, the rights of another stopped. It did so by hushing the voice of a six-year-old girl.”

Greene said the student had written a special poem for the program about her grandfathers, both of whom had served in the armed forces during the Vietnam War.

In it, she wrote, “he prayed to God for peace, he prayed to God for strength,” which Greene stated she was told she could not read during the school assembly.

“She was told that she was not allowed to say the word God during this program” stated Greene. “Being a six year old, and not knowing her rights, she did what she was told.”

Greene said the girl wasn’t trying to force people to pray, but was just telling them what her grandfather had done.

“Let me add here that those prayers worked, because he went on to serve two tours in Vietnam,” Greene said. “My question is this, when do the rights of one outweigh the rights of another? I believe that this little girl’s rights were violated and that those who worked so hard to prepare this program should receive an apology.”

Esther Dollarhyde agreed.

“We need to keep in mind what was our country founded on,” stated Dollarhyde. “It was founded on God and Jesus Christ, and our veterans went out and fought for us so we would have a free country, but if we aren’t allowed to honor them the way that the children want to then America is getting lost.”

When contacted after the presentations, School Board member Lynn Greene, who is also Chris Greene’s father, said school officials had overstepped their authority.

“My understanding on the law is a teacher cannot promote any certain religion, but when it comes to students voicing their opinion or expressing themselves in a poem we pretty much have to give some leeway,” Greene said. “To me this whole thing is a violation of that child’s rights. Nobody forced her to write the poem, that was her part of the program. She was asked to write a poem about veterans and she did. My personal opinion is that her rights were violated.”

School Board member Terry Frank said he could not comment until he knew more about the situation.
When asked why the decision was made to remove the word God, Superintendent Gerri Martin said it came about after a serious discussion with West Marion’s Principal Desarae Kirkpatrick and Vice Principal Nakia Carson.

“The discussion (about the poem) occurred between myself, the principal and the assistant principal at West Marion,” stated Martin. “We wanted to make sure we were upholding the school district’s responsibility of separation of church and state from the Establishment Clause.”

When asked why other schools were allowed to hold programs containing poems and student writings with the word God in them, Martin said that was because West Marion was the only one who had asked for consultation about their program.

Kirkpatrick, like Martin, said the decision was based on a public school’s necessity to not infringe upon other students’ freedom of religion.

“After consulting with the Superintendent, Dr. Martin, we jointly decided that we must err on the side of caution to prevent from crossing the line on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution,” stated Kirkpatrick. “As a principal of a public school, I must put aside my personal religious beliefs and follow the law, which upholds that we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but that we, as public schools, cannot endorse one single religion over another.”

The McDowell News contacted the First Amendment Center in Washington, D.C., which serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, and the rights to assemble and to petition the government.

After studying the situation, President and Chief Executive Officer Ken Paulson stated the school did in fact have the right to remove the word God from the child’s poem.

“Courts have consistently held up the rights for students to express themselves unless their speech is disruptive to the school,” stated Paulson. “When the little girl wrote the poem and included a reference to God she had every right to do that. The First Amendment protects all Americans. She had every right to mention God, (but) that dynamic changed when they asked her to read it at an assembly.”
Paulson stated that because students were a captive audience, which means they didn’t have another place to go if they didn’t want to attend the assembly, that administrators had the right to remove the word God.

“Courts have found that religious references at school-sponsored events generally run afoul of the First Amendment,” said Paulson, adding that if kids had randomly been asked what they thought of veterans, the little girl could have shared her poem, because it wasn’t planned. “When a public school knows there’s going to be a reference to religion then there is a problem and they have to address it. The reason for these restrictions is to prevent the government from endorsing a specific faith or religion. So public schools have to steer clear of religious references.”

USCCB Responds To Inaccurate Statement Of Fact On HHS Mandate Made During Vice Presidential Debate

FROM: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

October 12, 2012

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued the following statement, October 12. Full text follows:

Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

"With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact."

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain "religious employers." That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to "Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital," or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional "accommodation" for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as "non-exempt." That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation "to pay for contraception" and "to be a vehicle to get contraception." They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.
 
USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.

For more details, please see USCCB's regulatory comments filed on May 15 regarding the proposed "accommodation": www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-on-advance-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-preventive-services-12-05-15.pdf
---

HHS Mandate Hurts the Poor

A good article from the Heritage Foundation. It deals with (quite obviously) with the ramifications of the unconstitutional HHS Mandate and its effect on Catholic Charities. It includes the following You Tube video:

First Plaintiff Beats Obama HHS-Abortion Mandate in Court

From: LifeNews.com

A federal court issued an order Friday that halts enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Colorado family-owned business while an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit challenging the mandate continues in court.


The mandate has generated massive opposition from pro-life groups because it forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever order against the mandate on behalf of Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it. The administration opposed the order, arguing, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business.

The decision only applies to the company, and the court emphasized the ruling did not apply nationwide.

Since Hercules Industries would be required to begin offering the new coverage when its self-insured plan renews on November 1, Alliance Defending Freedom has requested a preliminary injunction that could prevent the government from enforcing the mandate against the company by August 1, the date when the company would need to begin the process of making changes to its plan.

As is the case with many religious groups or employers, the mandate could subject the Newlands to millions of dollars in fines per year if they don’t abide by its requirements.

“Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just that,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman after the decision.

Bowman added, “The cost of freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that will cripple their business if the Obama administration ultimately has its way. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that Washington bureaucrats cannot force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living. Americans don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

The pro-abortion ACLU has criticized the ruling, saying, “This is not religious freedom, this is discrimination. Real religious liberty gives everyone the right to make their own decisions about their own health, including whether and when to use birth control. It doesn’t give anyone the right to impose their beliefs on others.”

But the The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, also a pro-life legal group involved in the case, says the decision could spell the eventual overturning of the mandate itself.

“Judge Kane’s ruling today in favor of a religious for-profit plaintiff challenging the coercive HHS mandate got the law right. Religious liberty rights don’t stop at the store-front door,” said Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “This decision portends the demise of the current Administration’s attempts to drive religious activity from the public square and confine it within the four walls of a church.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty led the charge filing the first lawsuits against the HHS mandate representing five clients: Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian University, Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), Ave Maria University, and Wheaton College. There are currently over 20 lawsuits pending around the country against the HHS mandate.

Justice Dept: to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business

From: CNSNews.com

The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado--who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business--with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.

“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its Mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, this suit which seeks to protect a small business from being forced to take actions that violate the moral and religious beliefs of the family that owns it is likely to be the next major court battle over Obamacare.

At stake is whether businesses are protected by the First Amendment—the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees not only the free exercise of religion but also freedom of speech and of the press.

The Justice Department’s filing was made in Newland v. Sebelius--a suit brought by William, Paul and James Newland, and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who are Roman Catholics, and who together own Colorado-based Hercules Industries.

The Newland family founded Hercules in 1962 and have maintained it as a family-owned business ever since—growing it to the point where they now employ 265 people.

The Newlands’ lawsuit challenges a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized earlier this year that requires virtually all health plans to cover--without cost-sharing--sterilizations and all Food-and-Drug Administration approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.

Under the Obamacare law, businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate, the insurance must include the cost-sharing-free sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefit. The regulation takes effect on Aug. 1, which means that as soon as any business starts a new plan-year for its health-insurance program after that date it will need to comply with Sebelius's rule.

The Catholic Church, to which the Newlands belong, teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are intrinsically immoral. Last month, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously adopted a statement declaring Sebelius’s regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate” and a “violation of personal civil rights.”

While much of the media attention on Sebelius’ regulation has focused on the fact that it will apply to famous Catholic religious institutions such as Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame, the Catholic bishops have repeatedly pointed out that the regulation also violates the First Amendment-protected religious liberty of lay Catholic individuals. That includes employees who will be forced to pay insurance premiums on insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith and business owners who will be forced to provide such plans.

In their unanimous statement, the Catholic bishops declared that Sebelius’s regulation created a class of Americans “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.”

The Newlands currently run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous health-care coverage that is consistent with the teachings of the Newlands' church in that it does not cover sterilizations, contraception and abortifacients. They are precisely among the class of people that the unanimous Catholic bishops said have “no conscience protection at all” under Sebelius's regulation.

In their complaint against the Obama administration, which was prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Newlands clearly explained why they could not comply with Sebelius’s regulation without violating their religious faith.

Catholic Bishops Unanimous ‘In Our Vigorous Opposition to This Unjust and Illegal Mandate

From: CNSNews.com

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA Obamacare—sets the stage for an historically unprecedented confrontation between Roman Catholics and the federal government over whether Catholics remain free to exercise their religion in the United States of America.

The court’s decision leaves untouched the “preventive services” provision in the legislation under which the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation that will require virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

On June 14, the Catholic bishops of the United States—representing dioceses from Los Angeles to New York, from New Orleans to Chicago, from Miami to Seattle, and from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco—unanimously adopted a document that cited their “vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate.”

Because the Catholic Church holds that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong, and because the individual mandate in Obamacare will force virtually all individuals in the United States to purchase government approved health-care plans, Obamacare—as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday—will require all Catholic laypersons in the United States to buy health insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith.

The HHS regulation will also require Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to purchase health insurance plans that violate the Catholic faith.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius—a Catholic who has been ordered by her archbishop not to take Holy Communion until she recants her position in favor of legal abortion and goes to confession—has given most employers until Aug. 1 to comply with this regulation. She has allowed religiously affiliated non-profit organizations (such as Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities)  that do not currently cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives, or abortifacients an additional year--until Aug. 1, 2013--to comply with the mandate and then violate the teachings of their faith.

Forty-three Catholic dioceses and institutions—including the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., St. Louis and New York, the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University—have filed lawsuits against the sterilzation-contraception-abortifacient mandate arguing that it violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

Since the Catholics filed their lawsuits, President Obama has boasted about the contraception mandate in public speeches.

Pope Benedict Delivers Powerful Religious Liberty Message

From: LifeNews.com

We are five days into the “Fortnight for Freedom” following the U.S. bishops’ call to pray for the preservation of our most cherished liberty—religious liberty—and to more actively educate ourselves regarding the nature and foundations of this fundamental freedom. Preparing ourselves to defend our faith is not only a matter of what the Founding Fathers of our nation had to say about the matter, but about forming ourselves in our faith so we can defend it on its own terms.

Pope Benedict’s Sunday Angelus is very helpful in this regard, as he helps us set our expectations high and focus on the spiritual.

Referring to the Gospel passage for that Sunday, Mk 4: 26-34, the parable of the seed, the Holy Father drew an analogy between farming and Christian life. Just as a farmer can sow a seed, but depends on the seed’s innate potency and the soil’s fertility for crops, just so:

Every Christian therefore knows well that he must do all he can, but that the final result depends on God: this awareness sustains him in his daily efforts, especially in difficult situations. St Ignatius of Loyola wrote in this regard: ‘Act as though everything depended on you, but in the knowledge that really everything depends on God’ (cf. Pedro de Ribadeneira, Vita di S. Ignazio di Loyola, Milan, 1998).

It is a theme we have seen before in the Pontiff’s commentaries and addresses, one that is helpful to hear repeatedly: we must do all we can to cooperate with grace, and particularly in these days, we must do all we can to defend our religious liberty. Yet in the midst of our efforts, what gives peace and joy and confidence is the faith that our efforts, when united to Christ’s merits, are part of something greater than ourselves, and therefore fruitful, even if we will not see their results.

Penetrating more deeply into this mystery of the Christian’s cooperation with God’s grace, Pope Benedict compared the Christian life to the workings of a seed:

[T]he seed’s weakness is its strength, its breaking open is its power. Thus the Kingdom of God is like this: a humanly small reality, made up of those who are poor in heart, of those who do not rely on their own power but on that of the love of God, on those who are not important in the world’s eyes; and yet it is through them that Christ’s power bursts in and transforms what is seemingly insignificant.

What striking words, particularly in the context of our nation’s current struggles! Though we each must do all we can in this effort to defend our religious liberty, our success is not measured by the magnitude of our efforts or the greatness of their results. Rather, true Christian success is measured in terms of the Spirit: to the extent to which we look to God’s grace, put our faith in His work, decrease so that He may increase, and unite our sufferings to Christ’s cross. The humble victory of living virtue in ordinary life, of doing that right thing, of forgiving, of following our conscience, of sticking to our principles when unpopular, of doing what it takes to defend the truth…these often mundane struggles may seem insignificant, but are the occasions for grace to germinate and infuse society with hope.

In conclusion, Pope Benedict exhorted us to be confident and joyful, knowing that come what may, victory is ultimately assured.

The message is clear: even though the Kingdom of God demands our collaboration, it is first and foremost a gift of the Lord, a grace that precedes man and his works. If our own small strength, apparently powerless in the face of the world’s problems, is inserted in that of God it fears no obstacles because the Lord’s victory is guaranteed. It is the miracle of the love of God who causes every seed of good that is scattered on the ground to germinate. And the experience of this miracle of love makes us optimists, in spite of the difficulty, suffering and evil that we encounter. The seed sprouts and grows because God’s love makes it grow. May the Virgin Mary, who, like ‘good soil,’ accepted the seed of the divine Word, strengthen within us this faith and this hope.

It takes faith to understand these words. It takes faith to be like St. Peter, who cast his nets “at the Lord’s command” (Lk 5:5), landing a tremendous catch not because of his efforts, but because of the Lord’s action. May God find in us willing collaborators in his vineyard, especially during this Fortnight for Freedom, and may rejoicing in the Lord, whose ultimate victory is certain, be our strength, come what may.

We Are Catholics

Catholic Bishops Issue Prayer for Liberty

From: CNSNews.com

The Catholic bishops of the United States have called for the nation’s Catholics to observe the two week period starting today and running through the Fourth of July as a “Fortnight of Freedom” in which they hope Americans will pray for the preservation of freedom in this country and speak out clearly against the unprecedented attacks on religious liberty that have issued from the federal government.

The bishops have issued a new “Prayer for the Protection of Religious Liberty” that they hope Catholics will use frequently in the coming days. The prayer asks God to keep America “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” for “the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and all who come after us.”

It describes the current time as a “decisive hour in the history of our nation.”

The “Fortnight of Freedom” pointedly begins on the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More. Fisher and More are both Catholic martyrs beheaded by King Henry VIII in 1535 for refusing to take an oath recognizing Henry as the supreme authority over the church in England. Fisher, a cardinal, was bishop of Rochester. More, a lawyer, had served Henry as Lord Chancellor. Both gave their lives rather than bow to the king’s demand that they act against their consciences.

The most imminent threat to religious liberty—but not the only one—that the Catholic bishops have been protesting and seeking to draw public attention to is a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued under President Barack Obama’s health care law. The regulation will require virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover, without any fees or co-pay, sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraceptives and abortion are morally wrong. Thus, the regulation would force Catholic workers, business owners and institutions to buy and/or provide for things that violate the teachings of their faith.

After the Obama administration finalized the regulation earlier this year, most Catholic bishops around the country published a letter, read from the pulpits in local churches, that said: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”

This month, the Catholic bishops are distributing an insert in church bulletins around the country pointing to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s leadership of the Civil Rights Movement, and his defense of civil disobedience, noting that King, a Baptist minister, used the arguments of the Catholic Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to justify peaceful resistance to unjust laws. In the bulletin insert, the bishops made clear that civil disobedience may be necessary when freedom of conscience is attacked.

“Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified,” says the bulletin insert. “Every effort must be made to repeal them. When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need to witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.”

In a longer statement on religious liberty published in April, the Catholic bishops plainly restated the Catholic teaching: “An unjust law cannot be obeyed.”

“It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law,” said the bishops. “An unjust law cannot be obeyed. In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them. No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it should fall upon us, we must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and an obligation of faith.”

At their biannual meeting in Atlanta last week, the U.S. Catholic bishops unanimously endorsed a statement titled, “United For Religious Freedom.” This statement pointed out that it is not just Catholic institutions or employers whose religious freedom is attacked by the administration’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate, but also individual Americans, who in their consciences, object to these things.

Gay married couple sues Catholic hospital for denying spousal benefits

From: NYPOST.com

A lesbian couple from Westchester yesterday filed the first suit against a Catholic institution for refusing to recognize New York’s gay-marriage law.

The Manhattan federal court filing says the women — identified only as “Jane Roe” and “Jane Doe” — were wed Oct. 15, and that “Roe,” who’s worked at St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Yonkers since 2007, later applied to add “Doe” to her medical-benefits coverage.

But the request was denied by both St. Joseph’s and its insurance administrator, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, because hospital policy excludes same-sex spouses.

The class-action suit seeks an order declaring that both women are entitled to insurance coverage under federal law. It also says “thousands of legally married, same-sex couples” have been, or will be, denied benefits under similar policies administered by Empire, which is also named as a defendant.

The women are seeking an injunction ordering Blue Cross Blue Shield not to acquiesce to a company that wants to deny same-sex benefits because of religious beliefs, said Jeffrey Norton, their lawyer.
Empire declined to comment. St. Joseph’s didn’t return messages.

Catholic hospitals reject birth control compromise

From: MSNBC

Sharpening an election-year confrontation over religious freedom and government health insurance rules, the nation's Catholic hospitals on Friday rejected President Barack Obama's compromise for providing birth control coverage to their women employees.

The Catholic Health Association was a key ally in Obama's health care overhaul, defying opposition from church bishops to help the president win approval in Congress. But the group said Friday it does not believe church-affiliated employers should have to provide birth control as a free preventive service, as the law now requires.

The hospital group's decision calls into question a compromise offered by the president himself only months ago, under which the cost of providing birth control would be covered by insurance companies and not religious employers. While churches and other places of worship are exempt from the birth control mandate, nonprofits affiliated with a religion, such as hospitals, are not.

In a letter to the federal Health and Human Services department, the hospital group said the compromise initially seemed to be "a good first step" but that examination of the details proved disappointing. The plan would be "unduly cumbersome" to carry out and "unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns" of all its members, the group said.

While some liberal-leaning religious groups see no problem with the birth control rule, Roman Catholic bishops and conservative-leaning groups are treating it as an affront and calling it an attack on religious freedom. Institutions ranging from the University of Notre Dame to Catholic Charities in several states to the Archdiocese of Washington have sued to block the rule.

With the Catholic Health Association now voicing concerns, opponents gained a powerful endorsement. There was no immediate reaction from the Obama administration.

The association represents about 600 hospitals and hundreds of nursing homes and other health-related organizations, totaling 2,000 members around the country. One of every six patients is cared for in a Catholic hospital.

In its letter, the group said the government should either broaden the exemption for religious employers, or pay directly for the birth control coverage.

Starting next Jan, 1, in most cases, women will have access to birth control at no additional charge through their job-based coverage, as part of a package of preventive services that also includes HIV screening and support for breast-feeding mothers. Some employers, considered to be "grandfathered" in under the health care law, will not have to provide the coverage.

The requirement applies to all birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That includes the pill, intrauterine devices, the so-called morning-after pill, and newer forms of long-acting implantable hormonal contraceptives that are becoming widely used in the rest of the industrialized world.

The morning-after pill is particularly controversial. It has no effect if a woman is already pregnant, but many religious conservatives consider it tantamount to an abortion drug.

As recently as the 1990s, many health insurance plans didn't cover birth control. Protests, court cases, and new state laws led to dramatic changes. Today, almost all plans cover prescription contraceptives — but usually impose copays.

The White House has struggled to find a solution that will satisfy women's rights advocates without offending people who object on grounds of religious freedom. While Catholic church teaching has long opposed artificial means of birth control, polls show the faithful use the pill nonetheless.

Obama in 2008 won the total Catholic vote, 54 percent to Sen. John McCain's 45 percent, but he lost the white Catholic vote, 52 percent to 47 percent, according to exit polls. Once reliably Democratic, Catholics are now swing voters, with white Catholics making up the majority of the group.

Barrack Obama's "Freedom of Worship"

The timing may be off with this post, but there is an observation I've been meaning to point out with regard to Barack Obama's HHS Mandate on religious institutions.

Barack Obama in defending the mandate has suggested that it has no impact on "Freedom of Worship". So, exactly where does "Freedom of Worship" appear in the Constitution? It doesn't. The First Amendment provides for "Freedom of Religion". No one to my knowledge has called him out on this significant distinction.

Freedom of Religion of course provides for living one's life in concert with the principles of your faith. It unambiguously asserts the rights of Americans not to be coerced beyond the limits of their faith and conscience.

What about Freedom of Worship? This "nuance" effectively seeks to diminish the boundaries of faith in our individual lives by compelling actions in violation of firmly held moral convictions. Simply put, when Barack Obama and his closest allies speak of "free worship", they mean to segregate the services of devotion from its application in our daily lives. Obama's position essentially is that our faith has no value in society beyond the front door of the respective houses of worship and fidelity to the precepts of our faith is invalid if determined to be in conflict with our "enlightened" federal government.

In Barack Obama's America we must leave our prayers in the pew. In Barack Obama's America we must leave our faith at the front door. In Barack Obama's America our faith must submit to the new moral authority, or as Mark Steyn calls it: "The Church of Big Government".

Barack Obama has been let off the hook when he speaks of "Free Worship". Some might suggest this is just an example of political nuance to take the edge off the issue. This is an absurd defense. Look at the President's resume'. Are we supposed to believe that a man who graduated from Harvard Law School, the most prestigious law school in the country is unaware of the distinction between worship and religion? Are we to extend him the benefit of the doubt that as the editor of the "Harvard Law Review" that he is ignorant of the constitutional distinction? Are we to ignore his years as a Law Professor and conclude that he doesn't understand the clarity of the First Amendment?

Barack Obama has taken a position that undermines the first right in the United States, freedom of religion. Not worship, but RELIGION. Barack Obama's education belies his rhetoric. His record and motives are clear. WE can devote our lives to God, just as long as we keep our faith in the closet.   

Bishop Dolan: White House is "strangling" Catholic Church