Little Sisters threatened by HHS mandate, lawyers argue

cna ^ | January 3, 2014

[NYer]

A resident and a sister arrange flowers at the Little Sisters of the Poor's Mullen Home in Denver, CO in this undated file photo. Credit: El Pueblo Catolico/James Baca.

Washington D.C., Jan 3, 2014 / 05:57 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Despite the claims of the U.S. Justice Department, the demands of the federal contraception mandate threaten the continued works of service performed by the Little Sisters of the Poor, their attorneys say.

Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the religious sisters in court, charged that the government's claim amounts to “doublespeak” and “trivializes” the situation of the sisters.

For 175 years, the Little Sisters of the Poor have provided physical, spiritual and emotional care for the low-income elderly and dying in communities throughout the U.S.

Now, however, they are facing crippling fines due to the federal contraception mandate, which requires employers to offer health insurance plans including free contraception, sterilization, and some early abortion drugs for employees. Failing to comply results in fines of up to $100 per employee per day.

While the mandate includes a narrow religious exemption, the Little Sisters fail to qualify for it because they are not affiliated with a particular house of worship. Instead, the group falls under an “accommodation” by which religious employers can sign a form authorizing an insurance company or third party to provide payments for the products they find objectionable. Critics argue that these costs will ultimately be passed on to the objecting employers, despite the government's claims otherwise.

The Little Sisters asked that they be temporarily shielded from the mandate by an emergency stay, which was granted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Dec. 31, just hours before the mandate was to go into effect.

On Jan. 3, the Department of Justice responded to Sotomayor's order, arguing that the Little Sisters' “religious exercise is not substantially burdened” by the mandate because of the accommodation.

The Little Sisters contend that even being forced to sign a paper authorizing an outside party to provide the objectionable coverage is a violation of their religious beliefs.

The sisters are not alone in suing over the controversial regulation – lawsuits have been filed by more than 300 plaintiffs across the country. The majority have received preliminary injunctions while their cases work their way through the court system.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving for-profit businesses run by religious individuals who object to the mandate. A decision is expected in that case later this year.

Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has asked the federal government that temporary protection from the mandate be extended to all religious employers who object to it. The government has not publicly responded to his request.

Rassbach responded to the Justice Department's statement by saying that “the biggest tell here is what the government is doing.” He questioned why the government is “spending millions of dollars in legal costs” if it is, in fact, a minor matter for the nuns to sign the authorization form.

“In reality the government is acting as if the form matters a lot,” he said, noting that the government has said “in the lower courts that the purpose of the form is to authorize drugs and devices” that the nuns find unconscionable.

“The idea that it’s just a stroke of a pen trivializes the entire matter.”

[NYer]

Prayers continue, ping!

[abclily]

This is part of HHS’s war on non-muslims.

[GreyFriar]

Sibelius and bh0 probably believe that the only thing between the nuns having dozens of their own babies is not their vow of chastity but access to birth control pills.

[Westbrook]

Meanwhile, Muzzloids get a free pass.

And if the Catholics get their free pass, and you’re not a Catholic, then too bad for you.

The Catholic Bishops SUPPORTED 0bamacare!

I’ll not soon forget that.

[GreyFriar]

I know that Pope Francis speaks against divorce, but hopefully this entire anti-Catholic crusade will cause Catholics to divorce themselves from the Democrat Party. A party that is now for secular socialism and communism as opposed to what it was even as late as when FDR was president.

[NYer]

The Catholic Bishops SUPPORTED 0bamacare!

The Catholic Bishops support universal access to healthcare ... Not OBAMACARE!

[NTHockey]

>>Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has asked the federal government that temporary protection from the mandate be extended to all religious employers who object to it.<<

Ask the feds? DEMAND IT. And when they refuse, publicly excommunicate every single person who has anything to do with this.

And after they are through yelling and screaming, politely tell them that no baptisms, no Confessions, no Communion, no marriages, no burials, NOTHING.

And if they still persist, shut down all Catholic schools and Catholic hospitals.

[NYer]

I know that Pope Francis speaks against divorce, but hopefully this entire anti-Catholic crusade will cause Catholics to divorce themselves from the Democrat Party.

You are attempting to tie politics and religion together. I have already seen Facebook postings by two practicing catholics, in support of Hillary for 2016. Some people, regardless of their faith, are died in the wool democrats. For whatever reason, they simply cannot see the broader picture. Have attempted to open their eyes over the years but nothing seems to work. It's not just Catholics but Jews and other faiths, as well.

[Salvation]

On Catholics, to be specific. It may come the way of other Christians too, but I think it is mostly focused on Catholics right now.

[Salvation]

**The Catholic Bishops SUPPORTED 0bamacare!**

No they didn’t. I had a whole slew of links of Bishops speaking out against Obamacare and not supporting it.

Feel fortunate, my computer crashed and I don’t have them any more. I would have to find an old thread and retrieve them for you.

[Vaduz]

Wonder if somebody is going to be found hanging under a bridge for this?.

[Salvation]

I think they would go at your list backwards.

Shut down the hospitals first.

[Biggirl]

I do not think Hillary will run, keep a close eye on Chesea, heard a few months back that both Chesea and her husband want to begin their family this year. So the gramother stuff will keep Hillary busy without having to run for the White House.

[Bluestocking]

Could there possibly be a more striking example of GOOD versus EVIL than the Little Sisters of the Poor vs. the Obama administration?

What makes the case even more evil on the part of the Obama administration is that it has already exempted other groups, such as its union cronies and other unworthy special interests, from complying with the ObamaCare rules yet is adamant against a religious order whose mission is to help the poor.

And could there possibly be a more glaring example of the Democratic party’s deceitfulness in claiming to support the poor than doing everything possible to prohibit an organization whose mission truly is to help the poor from fulfilling it?

[dreamerintexas]

there were a number of catholic bishops who did NOT support obamacare, however, they did support universal coverage. the catholic health association, led by a sister, was a huge supporter of the bill. they were an early and vocal supporter and even now support it, even after it shows incredible harm to the healthcare system. the american hospital association is equally as ridiculous in their support. the sisters are also huge supporters of hillary. there is a chasm between the bishops and sisters in ideology.

[rcofdayton]

The American Bishops drank the bitter cup of socialism. The readers of The Road to Serfdom know that socialism ends up with totalitarianism. In today’s culture that means public funding of abortion. Yet they abandoned the Constitution for universal health care. They shall reap bitter fruit.

[cicero2k]

Kelly did a segment on this last night. The first I heard of the issue. The sisters refuse to sign a release which DOJ says is an inconsequential release. Sister’s counsel apparently advises them not to.

DOJ is wrong if this inconsequential document is pushed all the way to the Supreme Court by the DOJ.

Good for the sisters to stand up to this, and for Kelly to air it.

[GreyFriar]

True. but it seems as if to some “Catholics” the “right to” abortion and birth control have become articles of faith. But when one allies oneself with those who want you and/or your beliefs to be eliminated, does not seem like a good idea to me.

[NYer]

The first I heard of the issue. The sisters refuse to sign a release which DOJ says is an inconsequential release. Sister’s counsel apparently advises them not to.

Here's a fair and balanced explanation from one of our favorite bloggers, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf.

---

Hell’s Bible attacks the Little Sisters of the Poor

Posted on 3 January 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At NRO Kathryn Jean Lopez makes a good observation about the Hell’s Bible attack on the Little Sisters of the Poor.

The New York Times position [which, if you read the piece, is factually wrong] is that the Little Sisters of the Poor are imposing their religious beliefs on Americans by wanting to operate their elderly-care homes in conjunction with their conscience. In America, though, we’ve long valued religious liberty. Is it really the American way today to say to religious sisters – the women who built health-care in America – that Catholic teaching is not just not fit for polite society but their own service work?

(And Matt Bowman preempted the Times certification argument here.) [You can find some links over there.]

Further, about the businessmen with their supposedly tyrannical, intolerant streak: The Green family that runs Hobby Lobby and religious bookstores — as with the Mennonite family that runs Conestoga Woods – seek to live integrated Christians lives, where their public witness is authentic to their private professions. That’s not some strange tick they are trying to introduce, that’s how the Gospel calls Christians to live! And there are other arts and crafts stores one can work at or shop at if closing early to get home in time for a family dinner and having Sundays off (how Hobby Lobby rolls) offends you. [The Obama Administration is determined that you not have the right to express religious views in the public square. They will fine you, through the IRS, into the stone age if you try to live your Gospel values.]

In other news, a Chinese businessman wants to buy the New York Times. HERE Not a moment too soon.

The “third party solution” is no solution. The Little Sisters of the Poor would be be materially cooperating in sin. This they will not do. This is what the Obama Administration is trying to force them to do.