Judge will hold Obama administration to its pledge to modify HHS mandate

[ProVobis]

If this is a duplicate, I apologize.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16927

A US district court judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the HHS mandate filed by the Archdiocese of Washington, Catholic University of America, Catholic Charities of DC, and two other local Catholic organizations.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, ruled that the lawsuit was not ripe because the plaintiffs had not yet suffered injury. Citing similar rulings involving suits brought by Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College, she added:

Moreover, the government’s supplemental brief in this case clarifies that “the regulations will never be enforced in their present form against entities like the plaintiffs in those cases or plaintiffs here and that defendants will finalize amendments to the regulations in an effort to accommodate religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage before the rolling expiration of the safe harbor begins in August 2013” … [T]his Court “take the government at its word and will hold it to it.”

“The Court notes that it has construed the government’s representations as a binding commitment and it would not look favorably upon the government’s failure to comply,” Judge Jackson said in a footnote.

“The court’s ruling today places the onus squarely on the government to fulfill its binding commitment to address the religious freedom concerns of the Archdiocese of Washington, Catholic University of America and several other Catholic entities,” the archdiocese said in a statement. “This requires the government to revise its HHS mandate in a way that truly respects our right to serve all those in need without violating our religious beliefs.”

The archdiocese added:

Today’s decision was based on two commitments the government made to the court in this case and others: first, that the mandate as currently written will never be enforced against us; and second, that the mandate will be revised in a way that addresses our religious freedom concerns by March 31, 2013.

The court specifically noted that the archdiocese and its co-plaintiffs have the right to file a new complaint if the government does not make a meaningful change to the mandate by the March deadline. The court made clear that “it would not look favorably upon the government’s failure to comply.”

 

[chevalier]

What the government says sounds different from what Obama said before.

 

[Nimzovik]

REligous freedom is of course granted. What is really at stake here is the ability to ‘exercise’ one’s Religion. Quite a distinction.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Remember when the Obama said they would change the mandate and came out with the lame accommodation. I do not believe they will do anything substantially different this time to allow religious freedom fully to institutions and Churches

And what about the status of the Obama admin’s non exemptions for secular, for profit employers? Nothing will be changed for them, they will have to continue their lawsuits or launch one to get an exemption

 

[ProVobis]

What the government says sounds different from what Obama said before.

Maybe it was the way it had been reported. And it’s best to hear both sides of the argument before forming an opinion.

 

[_Abyssinia]

lifenews.com/2013/01/30/catholic-university-will-keep-fighting-mandate-after-defeat

Catholic University Will Keep Fighting Mandate After Defeat

 

[Bob_Aliano]

REligous freedom is of course granted. What is really at stake here is the ability to ‘exercise’ one’s Religion. Quite a distinction.

Obama altered Religious Freedom to mean Freedom to Worship and when he did so there were no major challenges, a few whimpering comments were all I ever heard. I worry that will become the “new” constitutional translation in which case a lot of us are going to be marginalized.

 

[Lucky7]

Once again, WHERE is this reported in the mainstream media???

 

[jwinch2]

patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2013/02/administration-issues-changes-to-hhs-mandate-for-religious-institutions-and-affilates.html

Others appear to be in some agreement.

Thanks Deacon, for posting this.

Peace of Christ,

 

[_Abyssinia]

Christian Defense Coalition Condemns HHS Contraceptive Revision as Still Failing on Protecting Religious Freedom for All Americans

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=41820

Obama Offers Yet Another Insufficient “Compromise” on the HHS Mandate

Journalist James Rosen says

This proposed rule change will apparently not apply to to private sector companies that are owned and operated by people with religious objection to the mandate, so companies like Hobby Lobby, one of the litigants, will still obligated to provide the coverage, until such time when the supreme court ways in on this controversial mandate

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=62wx5ygkvA8

lifenews.com/2013/02/01/planned-parenthood-applauds-obama-hhs-mandate-revisions

On the other hand, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, slammed the policy “updates” announced today.

“Once again, President Obama’s so-called ‘compromise’ is unacceptable – religious and moral freedom is not up for negotiation,” said Dannenfelser.

She told LifeNews: “There must be no religious ‘test’ by the government as to who, and what type of entities, are entitled to a conscience. We demand respect for non-religious entities such as the Susan B. Anthony List that recognize the taking of human life is the antithesis of health care. Government policy under our constitution, history and statutory law has recognized the right of citizens to be free from government compulsion of conscience on such fundamental matters. The only acceptable outcome is the complete repeal of the HHS mandate and the restoration of a thriving marketplace where Americans can choose health care coverage consistent with their beliefs.”

Fr. Pavone: Only Acceptable Change to HHS Mandate is to Rescind It

christiannewswire.com/index.php?module=releases&task=view&releaseID=71422

Pro-life leaders slam HHS mandate revisions as ‘unacceptable’

lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-leaders-slam-hhs-mandate-revisions-as-unacceptable

HHS believes religious freedom only belongs to religious universities, charities and hospitals, and not to for profit organisations that launched lawsuits such as

1. 
   *]Grote Industries LC
   
   *]Korte contractors
   
   *]Weingartz supplies
   
   *]Domino’s Farms
   
   *]Tyndale Publishers
   
   *]Sharp Holdings
   
   *]American Pulverizer
   
   *]Hobby lobby
   
   *]Triune health group
   
   *]Frank R O’Brien and O’Brien Industrial Holdings
   
   *]Hercules industries
   
   *]Legatus

 

[Monkey1976]

Moral concerns aside, what bugs me about this on a purely selfish/financial level is that, ultimately, I’m paying for someone else’s recreation.

Who can I talk to about mandating “zero-copay coverage” for hiking boots?

 

[SonCatcher]

This attempt at compromise looks exactly like the old one.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This attempt at compromise looks exactly like the old one.

Assuming the report is true, it is a clever ploy to seperate the clergy from lay Catholics. Now we will find out where principles lay.

 

[jwinch2]

This attempt at compromise looks exactly like the old one.

Agreed. Its window dressing, nothing more.

Statement of Michael P. Warsaw, President and Chief Executive Officer of EWTN Global Catholic Network in response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the US Government on the HHS Contraceptive Services Mandate Issued Friday, February 1, 2013:

“This morning the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on the government mandate that employee health plans must provide contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs as part of their coverage. On February 9, 2012, EWTN was the first organization to file a lawsuit challenging this mandate shortly after the original rules were promulgated by the government. That lawsuit is still pending in the US District Court in Birmingham, Alabama.

We have analyzed today’s notice with our legal team from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the initial conclusions are not promising. First, this is simply a notice of a proposed rule; it is not an actual rule that changes anything. Second, while the proposed rules might expand the mandate’s religious exemption for some organizations affiliated directly with the Church, it does not appear that EWTN will qualify for this exemption. Third, the proposed rules have not dealt with the concerns of self-insured health plans like EWTN’s. Today’s notice from the government simply kicks this can further down the road.

Sadly, throughout this proposed rule, the government continues to make the erroneous assertion that contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs are health care. They are not.

We will continue to study this notice with our attorneys, but are highly doubtful it will provide EWTN with any relief from this immoral mandate. EWTN remains firmly committed to pressing forward with our case in the Federal Courts and will take all steps necessary to challenge this unjust mandate.”

 

[pippin]

Notice how they call it “preventitive care” without saying what they are preventing. One would think we are against cancer screenings or immunizatons.

 

[Lucky7]

But how is this different for self-insured plans? The fact that the religious orgainzation sends a notice to another insurance company? I’m just not following how this gets the religious org completely out of the loop.

 

[Lucky7]

I found this helpful. It looks like it’s the private employers that are still in question:

catholicleague.org/new-hhs-rules-welcomed/

 

[SonCatcher]

They are requiring the same insurance provider to supply the coverage without cost under the table. The new rule tries to make the problem go away by sleight of hand.

 

[stellina]

CNN is just another Obama cheerleader, so I’ll believe it when I hear it from a reliable source.

I don’t trust Obama at all. He is egotistical beyond belief and cannot broach compromise. He has no scruples when it comes to pitting dissident Catholics & other Christians against the faithful. He had no trouble getting the so-called pro-life Democrats in Congress to sell out on health care. Let’s face it: if only Catholics voted in line with their church’s teachings, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

 

[jwinch2]

creativeminorityreport.com/2013/02/obamas-hhs-mandate-revision-will-still.html

Nobody seems to know for sure if this new exemption applies to Catholic colleges yet. As you remember, many Catholic colleges including Ave Maria, Belmont Abbey College, and The University of Notre Dame have sued to prevent from being forced to cover contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures.

But a Department of Health and Human Services Deputy Director of Policy and Regulation Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said “No nonprofit religious institution will be forced to pay for or provide contraceptive coverage, and churches and houses of worship are specifically exempt.”

That would seem at first glance to include Catholic colleges but not businesses like Hobby Lobby. So it would certainly appear that in America you cannot be a faithful Catholic and a business owner. It’s a sad day for America. A separate wrinkle will be those Catholic colleges that are self-insured. I’m sure lawyers are going through all of this attempting to make sense of it. I’ll keep you informed when I learn more.

Brooks-LaSure strangely added that the rule is “not yet final.” By that, I assume that means that this is not the final rule change which is a way of saying the Administration is going to continue to attempt to have lawsuits dismissed on the grounds that the rule could still change. If this is true, this would be a terribly disingenuous act in that for months they’ve promised the revision to finalize the mandate’s rules but then they offer a revision and say but it’s not yet final?

It’s a sad day when the government of the United States mandates that religious believers must act against their own faith.