¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009
0 Kudos

43 Catholic institutions file suits over HHS mandate.

43 Catholic institutions file suits over HHS mandate

Hotair ^ | 05/21/2012 | Ed Morrissey


Today's Roman Catholic calendar lists May 21st as the feast day of St. Christopher Magallanes, a martyr killed for celebrating Mass during the Cristero War in Mexico. Perhaps Catholics today may want to recall St. Thomas More -- the patron saint of lawyers, who was executed for refusing to agree to a mandate that gave Henry VIII the prerogative of defining religious expression in England. Dozens of Catholic institutions filed lawsuits todayagainst the Department of Health and Human Services over its mandate and its narrow definition of religious practice:

Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal district courts across the country Monday against the so-called contraception mandate, claiming their 'fundamental rights hang in the balance'.

The plaintiffs include a host of schools and organizations, including the University of Notre Dame and the Archdiocese of New York. The lawsuits, though related, were filed individually.

The schools are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months back softened its **noallow** on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

Kathryn Jean Lopezposts a brief statement from Timothy Cardinal Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and one of the chief critics of the HHS mandate:

We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate – ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.

The institutions filing lawsuits don’t just comprise a few ultraconservative institutions, either. The University of Notre Dame hosted a speech by President Barack Obama in 2009, but today insists that Obama and his administration are attacking religious freedom in their complaint:

This lawsuit is about one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. It is not about whether people have a right to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. Those services are, and will continue to be, freely available in the United States, and nothing prevents the Government itself from making them more widely available. But the right to such services does not authorize the Government to force the University of Notre Dame (“Notre Dame”) to violate its own conscience by making it provide, pay for, and/or facilitate those services to others, contrary to itssincerely held religious beliefs. …

If the Government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs in such a manner, there is no apparent limit to the Government’s power. Such an oppression of religious freedom violates Notre Dame’s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights.

The First Amendment also prohibits the Government from becoming excessively entangled in religious affairs and from interfering with a religious institution’s internal decisions concerning the organization’s religious structure, ministers, or doctrine. The U.S. Government Mandate tramples all of these rights.

Franciscan University also filed suit, and its president Father Terence Henry published this video statement:

Noting that Franciscan University did not go looking for this battle, Father Henry said the University retained Jones Day, one of the world’s largest law firms, with whom the University has had a relationship for the past twenty years, “because it has the resources to fight the government as long as it takes, and we will settle for no less than a restoration of our First Amendment right to freedom of religion.”

Father Henry concluded, “Under no circumstances can Catholics be both in compliance with this new law and at the same time live the faith that we believe. Franciscan University will continue to stand with the Church in its opposition to this mandate. Our ancestors came to America because they knew that on these shores they would be free to faithfully live what they believed. This mandate is not only a grave infringement on religious liberty; it is a betrayal of those who sacrificed to make this country what it is today.”

All of this probably makes the New York Times’ analysis of how Obama will win Catholic votes little more than wishful thinking. This oppressive move may well cast Catholics off from the Democratic Party for a generation. This will be a “come to Jesus” moment for many Catholics, and a wake-up call to the USCCB about the nature of government mandates in general.

Update: The Anchoress links to the “strong editorial” of the publication Our Sunday Visitor:

It seems to us hardly a coincidence that this suit is taking place in our centennial year. Founded 100 years ago by then-Father John Noll, Our Sunday Visitor from its beginning sought to inform Catholics about the issues of the day, form them in the Faith, and defend that Faith from attack. It was Father John Noll who stood up to those who attacked Catholic immigrants as un-American and seditious. It was Father John Noll who faced down false preachers who spread slanders about the Church. It was Father John Noll who resisted the power of the Ku Klux Klan when it was such a powerful political force. And it is in his courageous spirit that we invoke as we engage in this great struggle today.

We know that many Americans — and even many Catholics — are confused about this debate. Politicians and elements of the news media have sought to make it a war against women or contraception, and they have portrayed the Church as seeking to impose its values on others or as being covertly political.

We also acknowledge that many Catholics do not understand the reasons for the Church’s moral opposition to contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. This lack of understanding points to a significant catechetical need that the Church should address internally.

We reiterate, however, that this is not about the legality of such practices in society, nor is it about how many Catholics understand the Church’s **noallow**. It is about the Church’s right to practice what it preaches.

This is a critical moment for religious freedom in the US. If the federal government can define religious expression, then it can control or even outlaw it.

Update II: LifeNews has a statement from Notre Dame’s president, Fr. John Jenkins, who extended the invitation to Obama in the first place:

Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about: it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services. Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents. We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.

This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives. 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. For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.

Indeed. And as some have suggested, the administration’s arrogance and obstinacy in dealing with this issue raises the question of whether that’s not their preferred outcome anyway.

Update III: Replaced “its” with “Notre Dame’s” in Update II to clarify reference.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: 43 Catholic institutions file suits over HHS mandate.

40% of Dem primary voters opt for 'Not Obama'

IBD Editorials ^ | May 23, 2012 | ANDREW MALCOM


If this was Chicago, John Wolfe would find a surprising number of building inspectors thoroughly checking the quite obviously faulty wiring in his law offices this morning. Most cars parked near his door would display parking citations on their windshields. And the city sanitation crews swinging by that building might accidentally overlook the overflowing bins out back.

That's because John Wolfe has just severely embarrassed Barack Obama, a proud product of the Chicago Democrat machine that's run the Windy City for about eight decades now.

Obama's former White House chief of staff and campaign finance chair is the mayor there now and his dutiful precinct captains don't need instructions to know how to treat political troublemakers like Wolfe.

Fortunately for Wolfe, he's in Tennessee. He's a perennial political candidate and, just as often, a loser. But he's also a disgruntled Obama supporter who says, "I think the president campaigned one way and then governed another."

A thought that has occurred to several millions of Americans in these past 1,219 days since Obama grandly ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility that's still running strong, among numerous unfulfilled vows.

While Obama's team tries to make Bain the bane of Mitt Romney's existence, Wolfe is quietly going around to various states and tapping into an apparently widespread unhappiness with the Real Good Talker. Perhaps not surprising since Obama's job approval is back under 50% now, traditionally an ominous sign for incumbents.

Wolfe entered several state Democratic primaries against the realistically unchallenged White House incumbent. In Louisiana, Wolfe won three parishes.

Not bad for a nobody.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005








Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Obama loses 14 points with Catholics over Mandate.

Obama's grand miscalculation with Catholics (loses 14 points with Catholics over Mandate)

Fox News ^ | May 22, 2012 |  Maureen Malloy Ferguson,


The news Monday that 43 different Catholic entities across the country are suing the Obama administration, in response to the Health and Human Services' (HHS) rule mandating employer health care coverage of contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization, comes as a blow to the president's strength among Catholics, a demographic that helped carry him to victory in 2008.

This news comes on the heels of the the latest CBS News/New York Times poll which finds Mitt Romney now leading President Obama among women, yet another demographic that he previously commanded. If Mr. Obama was hoping to once again rely on Catholics and women to help carry him to electoral success in 2012, it appears as though he is miscalculating.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center shows that, despite the administration’s self-portrayal as the champion of “women’s issues” amidst a supposed Republican “war on women,” the president’s reelection advantage among women has declined in recent months as well as with another key demographic -- Catholics.


The Pew survey finds that, among Catholic voters with an opinion, 47% would today vote for President Obama, and 52% for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

That same margin, were it to hold on Election Day, would mark a swing of 18 million voters away from Obama.

The loss of these Catholic votes alone would remake the 2008 electoral map, delivering Florida to Governor Romney and leaving the president no margin for error in Colorado or Ohio.


The Obama administration no doubt knew it would lose some support with Catholics in the mandate. But they surely did not anticipate the strong and unified voice with which Catholic leaders, in particular bishops, responded even after the administration offered a compromise widely rejected as an accounting gimmick.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Obama loses 14 points with Catholics over Mandate.

Video: Planned Parenthood Employee  Urges Woman to Seek a SX Selection Abortion

By Daniel Doherty 5/29/2012


Perhaps most Americans have read about the discriminatory  SX-selection abortions taking place in countries like China and North  Korea.  But how many realize the practice is morally acceptable– and even  encouraged – in the United States of America?

The investigative pro-life group Live Action,  which has released videos exposing the abuses at the Planned Parenthood abortion  business across the country, has released a new video today showing a Planned  Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, Texas encouraging a woman to get a  SX-selection abortion.


The video shows a Planned Parenthood staffer encouraging the  woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl  and wanted to have a boy. The video is first in a new series titled “Gendercide:  SX=Selection in America,” that Live Action tells LifeNews will be exposing the  practice of SX-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned  Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective  elimination of baby girls in the womb.

“I see that you’re saying that you want to terminate if it’s a  girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?” a  Planned Parenthood counselor named “Rebecca” offers the woman, who is  purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the  gender.

“The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks,” explains  Rebecca, “and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know,  whether or not it’s a boy or a girl.”


While this bone-chilling video is unsettling to watch, it does  raise an important question: if this type of “advising” is permissible at one  clinic in Austin, Texas – and there are 820 Planned Parenthood clinics in the United  States – how many other PP staffers are offering similar advice?  Lila  Rose, who is the president of Live Action, recently told Townhall Magazine that the battle to stop  abortion is “the greatest civil rights movement” of our time.  And Rose and  her supporters aren’t just employing empty rhetoric; they’re at the vanguard of  the movement, exposing Planned Parenthood’s radical agenda and seemingly growing  obsession with eugenics.

Incidentally, I can’t watch the clip above without reflecting  upon Congressman Ron Paul’s (R-TX) moving pro-life advertisement he released  during the heady days of the 2012 Republican presidential primary.  As it  happens, after walking into a hospital room one day during a late-term abortion,  Dr. Paul watched as specialists terminated a pregnancy and placed the aborted,  breathing fetus into a bucket to die.  Meanwhile, in an operating room down  the hallway – perhaps only a few feet away – doctors were frantically scrambling  to save the life of a baby born prematurely.  The message was simple: how  can we – as ostensibly moral human beings – arbitrarily decide who lives and who  dies?

“Unless we resolve this and understand that life is precious,” Paul explains during the spot, “we can’t protect liberty.” Indeed.