Posted on 04/15/2020 10:53:55 AM PDT by Morgana
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has joined in an effort to curtail the religious liberty of Catholics.
Specifically, she has joined an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court nullify a regulation the Trump administration issued under the Affordable Care Act that would allow organizations that have religious objections to buying health insurance plans that cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to buy health insurance plans that do not cover these things.
Pelosi has condemned this regulation as "despicable."
Last week, she put out a statement explaining her outrage.
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement after joining a bicameral amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania arguing against the Trump Administration's expansive rule allowing private employers to opt-out of providing contraceptive coverage for their employees, in violation of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive-coverage requirement," said the statement posted on her website.
As you can see, Pelosi is on the opposite side of this case from the Little Sisters of the Poor.
They are defending religious freedom and the right to life. She is attacking both.
"The Trump administration's despicable rule allowing private employers and health plans to deny women coverage for contraception is an outrageous attack on women's health, women's pocketbooks and women's independence," Pelosi says in her press release.
In fact, the language of the Affordable Care Act did not expressly mandate that insurance plans include "contraceptive" coverage. However, a regulation issued by the Obama administration for implementing the Affordable Care Act did require that health insurance plans cover without copay "all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity."
FDA-approved contraceptive methods include drugs such as Plan B, which, according to the FDA, can prevent a new human being (after "fertilization") from implanting in the mother's womb.
Sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are all against the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Forcing Catholics to cooperate in them is forcing Catholics to act against their faith.
When the Affordable Care Act contraceptive mandate came before the Supreme Court in 2016, a group of 50 Catholic theologians and ethicists explained this to the court in an amicus brief.
"Regardless of the Government's definition of 'abortion,' the Catholic faith views the destruction of a human embryo at any time after conception -- including during 'the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo' -- as an abortion, and gravely wrongful," said these theologians and ethicists.
"The Catholic Church also deems contraception and elective sterilization to be seriously wrongful," they said.
They additionally argued that the "accommodation" the Obama administration had offered to those who had religious objections to the mandate did not remove the moral obstacle for Catholics.
Under this accommodation, an employer who had a religious objection to complying with the contraceptive mandate was required to fill out a form for the insurance provider or the government. This triggered a process that resulted in the insurance provider directly providing the mandated contraceptive coverage to those enrolled in the objector's plan.
"If Petitioners submit Form 700 or the HHS Notice as required by the 'accommodation,' there is a reasonable probability that they will trigger the provision of contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees that otherwise would not have happened," the theologians and ethicists said.
"Likewise," they said, "if Petitioners maintain a health plan or ongoing insurance relationship through which the Government undertakes to provide the objectionable coverage, it is reasonably foreseeable that their actions will contribute to the use of abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization that otherwise would not have happened."
"Thus," they concluded, "Petitioners can reasonably conclude that compliance with the Mandate threatens to make them the 'but-for' causes of grave moral wrongs, including the taking of innocent human life."
The Supreme Court in 2016 declined to issue a definitive opinion on the contraceptive mandate.
But in November 2018, the Trump administration issued two final rules providing exemptions to it. One exempted organizations that had religious objections to the coverage. The other exempted organizations that had moral objections. Both allowed the Obama administration's "accommodation" to remain in place for employers who wanted to voluntarily use it.
The state of Pennsylvania sued to stop the regulation protecting religious liberty. The Supreme Court will hear the case this month.
The brief that Nancy Pelosi signed along with 148 other House members and 37 senators argued that protecting religious liberty has to be balanced against "compelling government interests."
"Accepting Petitioners' arguments would require the Court to abandon the critical balance between burdens on religion and harm to others that it has maintained for decades and so recently reaffirmed," said the Pelosi-signed brief
"Moreover," it said, "Petitioners' arguments, if accepted, could alter this careful balance between accommodating religious freedom and protecting compelling governmental interests, not only with respect to contraceptive coverage but also in other areas."
"The accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be permitted to upend the careful, necessary balance between respect for religious freedom and the government's interest in protecting public health and welfare and prohibiting discrimination against women," said the Pelosi-signed brief.
Pelosi's apparent position is that the government's interest in forcing Catholic employers to maintain insurance plans that the government insists must be conduits for coverage of sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients justifies curtailing the religious liberty of those employers.
Bergoglio is one step ahead of her.
And to think that Pelosi is a Catholic, although a Cafeteria Catholic.
Pelosi is a heretic and progressive (socialist) who calls herself Catholic. She is not.
like socialists and commies, Democrats DESPISE people of faith.
They choose to persecute Catholics first because Catholics are simply the most visible. But rest assured Democrat persecution will surely come for the rest of us as well.
Catholic? my effing ass she is...
And to think that Pelosi is a Catholic, although a Cafeteria Catholic.
You will be able to tell when democrats have subverted the electoral process: They will all declare they true lack of faith.
all that said. I do not believe their hatred for people of faith is pure atheism. Democrats are satanically influenced.
The more Pelosi talks the more she sounds like a mental street person,even winos say huh?.
So basically she's the same as Bergoglio.
Unless Nancy Pelosi is excommunicated then she is and remains a Catholic with the silent endorsement of the socialist usurper Bergoglio.
Pelosi is a heretic and progressive (socialist) who calls herself Catholic.
So basically she’s the same as Bergoglio.
_____________________________
Or the United Methodist
<><> protecting religious liberty has to be balanced against "compelling government interests."
<><> "Accepting Petitioners' arguments would require the Court to abandon the critical balance between burdens on religion and harm to others that it has maintained for decades and so recently reaffirmed"
<><> "Petitioners' arguments, if accepted, could alter this careful balance between accommodating religious freedom and protecting compelling governmental interests, not only with respect to contraceptive coverage but also in other areas."
<><> "The accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be permitted to upend the careful, necessary balance between respect for religious freedom and the government's interest in protecting public health and welfare and prohibiting discrimination against women."
=====================================
Pelosi's apparent position is that the government's interest in forcing Catholic employers to maintain insurance plans ........ insists that the govt plans must cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients ....and that providing these "services" justify curtailing the religious liberty of those employers.
If she wasn’t so wealthy, the Church of Rome would have dumped her a long time ago. Like the Kennedys.
RCINC is the oldest most profitable multinational corporation on the planet. The current CEO is a gaia worshiping pedophile enabler.
She would be a Catholic even if she were excommunicated, just a Catholic who would be prohibited from the sacraments until she repents.
She's been denied communion at least once, maybe multiple times, under Canon 915, which states that those "obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin" are not to be admitted to communion. Google "nancy pelosi canon 915" for a more extensive treatment.
I think bishops are afraid to cross her, but it's not because of her wealth.
Pelosi is 80. Isn’t she going to die soon?
Nancy Pelosi is indeed excommunicated latae sententiae (automatically) as a heretic and as one who kills babies until and unless she fully and sincerely repents publicly before competent ecclesial authority (her bishop), who then may remit the excommunication. As one who is so excommunicated and who obstinately persists in such manifest grave sin, she of course cannot receive holy communion, even in such jurisdictions as are not under interdict. Any sacred minister who recognizes her and knows of her status must refuse her attempt if she dares to approach the Sacrament without first so repenting.
I pray that she does repent and so begins to defend forcefully the lives of unborn Americans and unborn babies around the world and to insist on all constitutional legislation to effect such protections. That’s even before the people of San Francisco next have an opportunity to oust her from public office.
Good point. DemonicRats are only generous with other people’s money, not their own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.