Commentaries
Cruz Was Right: HHS Mandate Puts Religious Liberty Under Assault
William Saunders and Mary Novick in LifeNews
April 15, 2013
Is "the freedom to worship" the same as "freedom of religion"? No it isn't. The freedom of religion entails much more than being able to "worship;" it includes being able to live out your faith. And that means to conduct your affairs - for-profit or nonprofit -so as to honor your deepest beliefs.
USCCB Says Administration Mandate Violates First Amendment Freedoms Of Religious Organizations And Others
USCCB
March 20, 2013
No exemption or accommodation is available at all for the vast majority of individual or institutional stakeholders with religious or moral objections to contraceptive coverage. Virtually all Americans who enroll in a health plan will ultimately be required to have contraceptive coverage for themselves and their dependents, whether they want it or not.
FLEMING: Pushing back against Obamacare’s overreach
Washington Times
March 12, 2013
Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo still remembers the gruesome images of the dismembered body of the child whose abortion she was forced to observe. Ms. Cenzon-DeCarlo, a nurse at a hospital in New York City, was required by her employer to assist in the abortion of a 22-week preborn baby. The hospital knew her long-standing opposition to abortion, yet threatened her job and her nursing license if she did not take part.
God and the Profits: Is There Religious Liberty for Money-Makers?
Mark Rienzi, Columbus School of Law, CUA
March 7, 2013
This article offers a comprehensive look at the relationship between profit-making and religious liberty, arguing that the act of earning money does not preclude profit-making businesses and their owners from engaging in protected religious exercise.
Congressmen: Obama Admin Can’t “Pick and Choose” Who Gets Religious Freedom
Sarah Torre in The Foundry - Heritage Foundation
February 26, 2013
On February 19, nine U.S. Senators and two U.S. Representatives joined a “friend of the court”brief in Hobby Lobby’s 10th Circuit Court appeal over the Obamacare anti-conscience mandate, highlighting the Obama Administration’s refusal to recognize business owners’ religious freedom. The congressional brief explains that the federal government “may not pick and choose whose exercise of religion is protected and whose is not.”
How to reduce abortions
Richard M. Doerflinger in The Washington Post
February 21, 2013
Assuming we don't want to focus on compromising the autonomy and dignity of women to achieve a sterile population, what approaches with wide popular support could reduce abortion, even as it remains legal under the Supreme Court's decisions?
Members of Congress File Legal Brief on HHS Contraception Mandate
Orrin Hatch
February 20, 2013
"Religious freedom is an issue our country was founded on, and it's not a Democrat or Republican issue. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has time and again ignored calls to stop the implementation of a policy some organizations or businesses are morally opposed to."
HHS Wars: Nothing Has Changed
Connie Marshner in Independent Women's Forum
February 20, 2013
The so-called HHS "accommodation" earlier this month on the HHS mandate is just that: so-called. It was 80 pages of text to say: nothing has changed. Nothing for the better, that is. The bureaucratic finagling may well have given a kick in the solar plexus to private business.
Not a Real Olive Branch: Obama’s phony compromise on contraception
Wesley. J. Smith in The Weekly Standard
February 11, 2013
The issue here is not contraception, but the demolition of limited government. If the Obama administration can force the private sector to provide a free product to help the government circumvent a constitutionally protected freedom, what can it not do?
What the contraception fight is about
Jonathan Imbody in The Washington Post
February 8, 2013
Mr. Obama undermined any pretense of a compelling health justification for a government mandate by unwittingly observing that 99 percent of women already access contraceptives. His health department dismissed concerns of economic consequences, blithely contending that preventing babies is cheaper than having them.
HHS ‘accommodation’ nothing more than a gimmick
Leonard Leo in The Washington Times
February 8, 2013
We are now entering at least Round Three in the administration's ongoing efforts respecting abortion and contraception services under Obamacare, and it is dividing Americans in a culture war that smacks more of politics than a well-intentioned crusade for women's health.
HHS: Preventing babies cheaper
Jonathan Imbody in The Washington Examiner
February 7, 2013
The administration claims -- without proof -- that it's justified forcing insurers to provide products and services for free because it will be cheaper to prevent babies than to deliver them.
Wassup with the HHS Mandate?
Kim Daniels in National Review Online
February 6, 2013
Most objecting religious employers are in the same position they were before Friday, faced with a choice between giving up their religious beliefs or facing crippling government fines.
Abortion pill mandate gives the illusion of compromise
Alan Sears in The Washington Examiner
February 6, 2013
The Obama administration is attempting to divide the faith community by issuing a minor amendment to Obamacare's abortion pill mandate. The mandate itself 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.
Obama’s new contraception rules try to fool Catholics
M. Gerson in Washington Post
February 6, 2013
The administration has never shown a particularly high regard for institutional religious liberty. In this case, the administration views access to contraception as an individual right to be guaranteed by the government, and institutional religious rights as an obstacle and inconvenience. But the First Amendment, it is worth remembering, was designed as an obstacle and inconvenience to the government.
Another Non-Accommodation
Jim Capretta in National Review Online
February 5, 2013
On the contrary, it is a renewed statement by the administration that it will not allow religious institutions or believers to dissent from the prevailing secularism of the day.
Missed opportunity on the HHS mandate
Kim Daniels in Catholic Voices USA
February 5, 2013
The administration admits as much, stating 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." In other words, colleges, hospitals, and most social service organizations are still not exempt from the mandate.
New Obama rule would spare churches but not believers
The Washington Examiner
February 3, 2013
It remains remarkable that the Obama administration ever thought it appropriate to create a religious exemption so narrow and meaningless that even Catholic Charities, the Catholic University of America and the Archdiocese of Washington would not have qualified.
A New Round of Intolerance
Yuval Levin in NRO
February 1, 2013
So basically, the religious institutions are required by the government to give their workers an insurer and that insurer is required by the government to give those workers abortive and contraceptive coverage, but somehow these religious employers are supposed to imagine that they're not giving their workers access to abortive and contraceptive coverage.
Obama ‘freedom to worship’ assaults First Amendment
Jonathan Imbody in The Washington Times
January 28, 2013
The first American Congress enshrined religious liberty pre-eminently in the Bill of Rights. Many of those leaders and their fellow patriots who ratified the First Amendment had risked everything they owned and their very lives to win those freedoms. They also recognized that threatening one group’s freedoms, by either restricting or establishing a faith, threatens the freedoms of everyone.
Gaining ground in a 40-year march on abortion
Jeanne Monahan in Washington Times
January 24, 2013
Developments in prenatal imaging, including ultrasound, which provide a stark look at the humanness of unborn children, have played a part in public opinion. Another tremendously hopeful sign on the horizon involves young people’s views on abortion. The bottom line is that young people are pro-life and are incredibly enthusiastic about ending the human rights abuse of abortion.
Judicial Theocrats Against Religious Liberty
NRO commentary by Ed Whelan
January 3, 2013
In a Public Discourse essay titled "The HHS Mandate and Judicial Theocracy," Melissa Moschella nicely explains how appalling it is that some judges ... have somehow seen fit to impose on religious believers the judge's own view on what constitutes improper complicity in immoral conduct.
Pharmacist Conscience Rights Under Attack
Carrie Severino commentary in NRO
December 3, 2012
The Judicial Education Project, in conjunction with two leading Jewish Orthodox Groups, Agudath Israel of America and the National Council of Young Israel, has filed an amicus curiae brief in a Becket Fund case, Stormans Inc. v. Mary Selecky, et al., defending conscience rights for pharmacies and pharmacists. Stormans challenges the constitutionality of Washington State's Board of Pharmacy regulations that require pharmacists and pharmacies to dispense emergency contraceptives.
Eighth Circuit Injunction Against HHS Mandate
NRO article by Ed Whelan
November 30, 2012
I'm pleased to pass along that an Eighth Circuit panel has, for now, overridden the badly confused decision (O'Brien) from Missouri that denied a Catholic employer injunctive relief against the HHS mandate.
‘Culture wars' are just getting started
M. Dannenfelser commentary - Washington Times
November 28, 2012
Happy days are here again for Planned Parenthood. It has helped return to the White House the most active pro-abortion president in American history, protected the largest expansion of abortion and abortion subsidies since Roe v. Wade, and reinstated a Democratic Senate that will block pro-life initiatives and battle tooth and nail for judges who will protect abortion on demand.
Another Victory for Challengers of HHS Mandate
NRO commentary by Ed Whelan
November 19, 2012
The HHS contraceptive mandate suffered another loss last Friday—its third loss in the four decisions that have addressed the merits of the claim that the HHS mandate violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In a thorough opinion in Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the federal district court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction that bars the federal government from penalizing a publishing house for its religiously based refusal to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives that also operate as abortifacients.
Obamacare strong-arms religious beliefs
Washington Times commentary by Cody and Millard
November 16, 2012
Hopes of repealing Obamacare took a beating last week with the election results. For the foreseeable future, implementation of the Affordable Care Act will continue, including the Department of Health and Human Services‘ (HHS) "contraception mandate" - a frightening glimpse of what we have to look forward to.
Religious conservatives’ uphill battle
M. Gerson commentary in Washington Post
November 15, 2012
President Obama's first term was a period of unexpected aggression against the rights of religious institutions. His Justice Department, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, argued against the existence of any "ministerial exception" to employment rules. Obama tried to mandate that Catholic schools, hospitals and charities offer insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients. His revised policy still asserts a federal power to declare some religious institutions secular in purpose, reducing them to second-rate status under the First Amendment.
Carney: Re-elected, Obama takes aim at religious liberty
Washington Examiner
November 11, 2012
The Obama administration this month, in defending its health plan's contraception mandate, articulated a narrow view of the First Amendment's religious liberty protections. Obamacare requires employers to pay for contraception and sterilization coverage. This includes coverage of "morning-after" contraceptives, whose makers admit the drugs can kill a fertilized egg by preventing or "affect[ing]" implantation.
Anti-Conscience Mandate Halted Against Second Family-Owned Business
Heritage commentary by Dominique Ludvigson
November 3, 2012
A second federal district court has granted a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of Obamacare's conscience-crushing contraception mandate. Weingartz Supply and its owner objected to the mandate's requirement that they provide their employees abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraceptives in violation of the owner's religious beliefs or risk crippling fines.
Another Catholic Business Protected Against Free Birth Control Rule
NRO commentary by Wesley J. Smith
November 1, 2012
Good news. Contrary to the O'Brien case in St. Louis, and consistent with the Hercules case in Colorado, a judge has protected a Catholic-owned business from having to comply with Obamacare's Free Birth Control Rule. First, since the company is owned by a Catholic family, it substantially burdens their faith.
What About Religious Freedom? The other consequences of Obamacare
Weekly Standard commentary by W.J. Smith
October 22, 2012
Obamacare won't just ruin health care. It is also a cultural bulldozer. Before the law is even fully in effect, Health and Human Services bureaucrats have begun wielding their sweeping new powers to assault freedom of religion in the name of their preferred social order.
Summer of Intolerance Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Bleeds into Fall
Heritage Foundation commentary by Dominique Ludvigson
October 18, 2012
Gallaudet University put its chief diversity officer, Angela McCaskill, on paid leave last week for the offense of joining 200,000 other Marylanders in signing a petition supporting a ballot referendum over Maryland’s recently adopted same-sex marriage law.
Obamacare limits freedom on abortion, contraception
Washington Examiner commentary by Helen Alvare
October 15, 2012
On Oct. 5, President Obama came to George Mason University in Virginia, where I teach law, to generate support for the health care mandate requiring employers to buy health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization and drugs that cause early abortions. "Let me tell you something, Virginia," he said. "I don't think your boss should control the care you get. I don't think insurance companies should ... I definitely don't think politicians on Capitol Hill should ... I think there's one person who gets to make decisions about your health care -- that's you." The president can obviously say what he wants, but I wish he wouldn't say that a law means its opposite.
Debunked: Biden Claims HHS Mandate Not an Assault on Religious Liberty
Heritage Foundation commentary by Sarah Torre
October 12, 2012
The real "fact" about the anti-conscience mandate is that it applies to almost all employers-including many religious organizations such as hospitals and social service providers. It requires them to provide coverage that pays for abortion drugs, contraception, and sterilization regardless of moral or religious objections.
Obama Mandate: The Gravest Threat to Religious Freedom in 226 Years
American Thinker commentary - K. Blackwell and B. Morrison
October 7, 2012
James Madison famously said that the people are right to take alarm at the "first advance on their liberties." The Obama mandate will force us to violate our consciences. President Obama famously said that he doesn't know when human life begins, but he's willing to force us to collaborate in the destruction of innocent human lives.
Blunt Amendment: Protections For Religion, Conscience Long Established
Hartford Courant commentary by Rep. N. Johnson
October 5, 2012
Strong pro-choice representatives and senators, women and men, have understood the value of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Until the Affordable Care Act dramatically limited protection, it was seen as essential in a democracy that guarantees religious freedom.
Obama Commitment to Religious Freedom ‘Worrisome’
Washington Times commentary by Paul Rondeau
September 28, 2012
The unelected Secretary Sebelius of HHS then imposed rules that redefined religious freedom to the point that, as Cardinal Wuerl explained, "HHS's conception of what constitutes the practice of religion is so narrow that even Mother Teresa would not have qualified."
Common Ground or Not, Let’s Do What’s Right
FRC blog by Rob Schwarzwalder
August 29, 2012
Some well-meaning souls are calling for Christians to stand-down in the battle for our culture and simply be nice to everybody. In practical terms, this means abandoning the unborn, their mothers, marriage and the family, and religious liberty to those who would harm them.
The HHS-Mandate Battle
National Review Online commentary by L.M. Nussbaum
August 21, 2012
Some of the plaintiffs had been misled by President Obama himself. During his Notre Dame speech, the president promised that, notwithstanding his support of abortion rights, he intended to "honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause."
An Open Letter to President Obama
TownHall.com commentary by Casey Mattox
August 18, 2012
What is the breadth and scope of the religious liberty you believe ought to be respected? Do you believe religious liberty stops where Planned Parenthood's financial needs begin? Should Americans be forced to pay for that which violates their conscience and the tenets of their faith?
Is religious freedom being intentionally eroded?
Turtle Bay and Beyond commentary by Wendy Wright
August 9, 2012
Soon after President Obama took office, astute observers noticed a one word change in official pronouncements. That one word carries huge implications, yet arrived with no explanation. This mystery may now be understood as what's behind some of the most contentious international and domestic policy decisions of the Obama administration - the contraception mandate and aggressive promotion of homosexuality in other countries.
Is Religious Freedom Necessary for Other Freedoms to Flourish?
BQO commentary by Thomas Farr
August 7, 2012
America's founding generation identified religious freedom as "the first freedom" because they saw it, in effect, as a precondition for the other freedoms. James Madison wrote that each of us has rights that flow from the duty we owe God. "This duty is precedent, both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe."
Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction in HHS Mandate Fight
Heritage commentary by J. Marshall and D. Ludvigson
July 29, 2012
Accepting the Administration’s logic would limit the application of religious freedom to individuals alone, acting within their houses of worship on weekends. It would effectively push religion out of every sphere of public life and restrict the free exercise rights of adherents to live out their faiths in their day-to-day lives. The Administration does not appear to perceive religion as something that people of faith strive to live out daily in every aspect of their lives, however imperfectly.
Bizarre White House meeting undermines faith-based outreach
Freedom2Care blog by Jonathan Imbody
July 27, 2012
I recently experienced what was by far the most disturbing and bizarre of dozens of White House meetings and events that I've attended--the White House Forum for Faith Leaders in conjunction with the International AIDS Conference 2012.
Abortion, Conscience, and Health Care Provider Rights
Public Discourse, by E. Christian Brugger
July 26, 2012
This framework—our moral knowledge—is not merely an affectively supported matrix of subjective beliefs, but the basic apprehension of a set of propositions asserting truths pertaining to what is good, choiceworthy, and consistent with human well-being.
The HHS Mandate: Not an Academic Debate
National Review commentary by K.J. Lopez
July 20, 2012
For Wheaton, the violation of conscience lies in the inclusion of abortion-inducing drugs in the HHS mandate — further evidence that at the heart of the debate is not access to contraception but the erosion of religious liberty. “We were surprised that the federal government is using the term ‘contraception’ to refer to drugs that are widely recognized as having an abortive effect,” Ryken explains. “The secretary of Health and Human Services has been on record publicly as saying these are drugs that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg."
State Department To Downplay Religious Oppression
Investor's Business Daily editorial
July 17, 2012
Religious institutions see the universities, hospitals, charities and other social services they perform as part and extensions of their faith. The government believes they are impediments to its growing power over every facet of our lives. As a result, these religious institutions and the freedom on which they are founded, are in serious jeopardy.
One HHS Mandate Case Dismissed, Don’t Read Too Much Into It
National Review Online commentary by Kyle Duncan
July 17, 2012
Today’s decision by a federal district court in Nebraska to dismiss one of the many pending lawsuits against the HHS abortion-drug, contraception and sterilization mandate is unfortunate (and in one respect, seriously mistaken). But the decision turns on technicalities and doesn’t decide the merits of the dispute. Bear this context in mind if you should hear anyone trumpeting this decision as some sort of “victory” for the federal government on the religious-liberty questions at the heart of the HHS mandate litigation.
Religious Freedom Under the Gun
Weekly Standard commentary by Thomas A. Farr
July 16, 2012
Given the Obama administration's consistent downgrading of religious freedom at home and in foreign policy, this move may be part of a larger reprioritization in human rights policy in favor of the advancement of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights. Whatever one thinks of that initiative, however, the failure to promote religious freedom abroad is likely to have significant humanitarian and strategic consequences for the United States.
Omaha Stacy vs. HHS
National Review Online commentary by K. Lopez
July 11, 2012
Thomlison is 31 and suffers from Crohn’s disease, a chronic gastrointestinal condition that threatened her life when she was a teenager. This patient is also a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by seven state attorneys general in response to the Department of Health and Human Services mandate requiring employers, regardless of their religious convictions, to provide insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.
ObamaCare decision does not stop fight against abortion pill mandate
Townhall commentary by Steve Aden
July 10, 2012
The fight against the abortion pill mandate is a fight for religious freedom, whereas the ObamaCare case revolved primarily around the constitutionality of the health care legislation as a whole. Freedom of conscience itself is at stake with the abortion pill mandate.
Repeal Obamacare -- and then really reform health care
Washington Examiner commentary by Jonathan Imbody
July 5, 2012
Reforming health care is unquestionably challenging, but it's not brain surgery. It works best when following basic principles most kindergartners learn: Help others up when they've fallen, keep your hands off other people's stuff and save your lunch money for when it's needed.
Obamacare’s Many Victims
Heritage Foundation commentary by Sarah Torre
July 5, 2012
Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate displays the Administration’s offensively constricted view of faith in public life, affording the narrowest religious exemption in federal law that effectively only applies to formal houses of worship. Schools, soup kitchens, health clinics, and countless other “Good Samaritan” groups are left completely unprotected by the exemption simply because they serve vulnerable individuals without regard to their creed or background.
HHS mandate challengers receive unlikely support
CNA commentary by Kim Daniels
July 3, 2012
In her separate opinion – joined by Justice Sotomayor, Justice Breyer, and Justice Kagan – Justice Ginsburg notes that beyond the provisions directly at issue in the healthcare case, other constitutional provisions limit the power of the federal government: “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”
The fight against Obamacare isn't over yet
Washington Examiner commentary by Casey Mattox - ADF
June 29, 2012
The first of Obamacare's hammers has already fallen, targeting religious freedom. And attention must now turn to the dozens of cases around the country aimed at stopping what is known as the Health and Human Services, or HHS, mandate -- the requirement that qualifying insurers and self-ensuring employers pay for sterilizations, abortifacient drugs and contraception, or else pay a fine.
What next for health care reform?
Blog by Jonathan Imbody
June 29, 2012
Religious Liberty Takes Center Stage
Daily News commentary by Mark Rienzi
June 29, 2012
Nothing in the court’s opinions directly addressed the religious-freedom challenges brought in the 23 lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate that all employers must provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and drugs and devices that cause early abortions. In fact, every justice who voted to uphold the law was quite clear that Congress’ exercise of its taxing power remains subject to other constitutional guarantees like the right to religious freedom.
Individual Mandate Survives; Religious Liberty Challenges Move Forward
Becket Fund commentary
June 28, 2012
“The Becket Fund’s religious liberty lawsuits against the unconstitutional HHS mandate will continue,” said Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Never in history has there been a mandate forcing individuals to violate their deeply held religious beliefs or pay a severe fine, a fine which could force many homeless shelters, charities, and religious institutions to shut their doors.”
A Clarion Call for the American People
Heritage Foundation commentary by N. Owcharenko and R. Alt
June 28, 2012
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare reflects a tragic misreading of the law, one which could cost us not just economically but also in terms of liberty. On the bright side, the Court recognized that there are limits to what Congress may do under the Commerce Clause. But this was the silver-lining of a dark cloud. The Court then fundamentally misreads ObamaCare, contorting to find another authority—the power to tax—for Congress to enact the law.
NCBC Response to the June 28 Ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court
National Catholic Bioethics Center commentary
June 28, 2012
From the perspective of social justice, this law jeopardizes the principle of subsidiarity, which, like the principle of federalism upon which our Constitution was written, holds that services ought to be provided by those social agencies and instrumentalities of government that are closest to the point of delivery. Tremendous dangers lie in health care being orchestrated by the highest level of social organization, our federal government.
Religious Liberty Concerns Grow Greater as Obamacare Upheld
Heritage Foundation commentary by J. Marshall and S. Torre
June 28, 2012
This morning, the Supreme Court didn’t just miss the opportunity to protect individual liberty. It also failed to defend religious freedom. The Court’s ruling to uphold the health care law doesn’t mean it has cleared its legal challenges, however. Twenty-three federal lawsuits against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate—which goes into effect on August 1—now take on added urgency.
Pregnancy, Preventive Services and Cost Saving: An Ethical and Economic Mirage
Commentary by Chuck Donovan, Charlotte Lozier Inst.
June 27, 2012
Without the ability to track the value of investment in human capital and the return on an individualized basis, the presumed cost-savings of family planning even to government is a pseudo-statistic that depends on an extremely narrow frame of reference and a deterministic, faintly eugenic theory of human development. Numerous nations that have experienced sharp drops in fertility are facing crises of aging that threaten the viability of their economies and government services across the board.
Health Care After the Court
Commentary by Yuval Levin - EPPC
June 27, 2012
As a matter of policy substance, the individual mandate is peripheral, not central, to the Left's approach to health-care reform. It is necessary to the system envisioned by Obamacare precisely because that larger system is at odds with basic economics. Left to itself, the system would quickly self-destruct, since it would create strong incentives for people to remain uninsured until they were sick.
What's Behind The Mandate?
Crisis Magazine commentary by Gerard Bradley
June 26, 2012
It is easy to see already that “equal sexual liberty” is a natural predator of Catholic institutions, which are standing contradictions of almost all that the new orthodoxy proposes. What is not so apparent, however, is why the new orthodoxy has so totally eclipsed considerations of conscience, tolerance, and liberty in the thinking of self-identifying liberals such as Barack Obama.
Modern-day slaves, hostage to abortion
NY Daily News commentary by S. Wagner and K. Daniels
June 24, 2012
In May 2011, the federal Department of Health and Human Services decided its human trafficking grant-making process would prioritize those who would provide “family planning services and the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.” Translation: Unless you offer abortion and contraception, you’re not welcome.
"Accommodation" Fails to Protect Religious and Moral Conscience
Heritage Foundation commentary by T. Messner and E. Haislmaier
June 19, 2012
Though the ANPRM states that insurance issuers would be prohibited from charging a premium for the separate contraceptive coverage, there is no reason to believe that insurance issuers would not raise premiums on other services to compensate for the coverage they are forced to provide for “free.” Indeed, state-level insurance regulation is properly focused on ensuring that issuers charge enough in premiums to cover expected claims costs, and failing to adjust premiums to pay for mandated services could undermine the financial solvency of insurers,
Emergency Contraception: We need an unbiased review of the facts
Family Research Council blog by Jeanne Monahan
June 7, 2012
In the end, this conversation requires caution and continued unbiased research. The difference between preventing and destroying life is immensely significant to women who choose to take these drugs. Women have the right to know about all of the scientific research, not merely the research supporting an individual ideology.
Dust Off Your Law Books President Obama
Forbes commentary by Christen Varley
June 7, 2012
Religious freedom and liberty activists, along with faith leaders, policy advocates and politicians across the country are petitioning members of Congress to live up to their oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America by voting to protect religious freedom.
ObamaCare Automatic Enrollment of Minors
Alliance Defense Fund blog entry by Matt Bowman
June 6, 2012
ObamaCare is not content with forcing coverage of abortion-inducing drugs against people's consciences. Now the administration has made its attack on conscience even worse: by forcing abortion-drug coverage onto children against their parents' objection.
Mandate for health services touches full religious spectrum
Philadelphia Inquirer commentary by Joe Watkins
June 4, 2012
Priests, rabbis and pastors, as well as ministry and faith leaders across the spectrum, are speaking out against this policy. The mandate impacts people of all faiths. Forcing a religious institution to provide and pay for services that violate its own faith goes against our nation’s history of religious liberty.
ObamaCare and the War on the Church
Commentary magazine article by Jonathan S. Tobin
May 31, 2012
Allowing their institutions to abstain from providing contraception coverage does not make the church a law unto itself or impose its views on others; it merely leaves them alone.
Religious liberty at stake in battle over contraception rule
CNN commentary by Mary Matalin
May 25, 2012
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the first line of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, this now only applies to the certain instances for which President Barack Obama sees fit.
Protecting our Catholic conscience in the public square
Washington Post op-ed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl
May 23, 2012
Imagine the church's surprise, then, to be told by the federal government that when a Catholic organization serves its neighbors, it isn't really practicing its religion. That is the unacceptable principle at the heart of a mandate, issued in February by the Department of Health and Human Services, that requires religious organizations to provide health-care coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, even if their faith teaches that those drugs and procedures are wrong.
Different words, same policy
Washington Times commentary by Anna Franzonello
May 23, 2012
This week my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, was one of more than 40 plaintiffs to file suit against the Department of Health and Human Services regarding its mandate that private health insurance plans cover life-ending drugs and devices, including the abortion-inducing drug ella.
Catholic bishops strike back
Washington Times commentary by Cathy Ruse
May 23, 2012
In January, the Obama administration hit Catholic employers with arguably the most religiously-oppressive government directive in modern American history: Provide free abortion drugs and birth control pills in your health insurance plans, in flagrant violation of your religious beliefs, or face legal punishment. This week the bishops of the Catholic Church hit back. In one of the largest legal actions to defend religious liberty in U.S. history, Catholic organizations filed a dozen lawsuits across the country claiming the Obama Health and Human Services Department rule violates the right to religious freedom set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
Obama's grand miscalculation with Catholics
Fox News commentary by Maureen Malloy Ferguson, Ashley McGuire
May 22, 2012
In the most comprehensive survey conducted on the issue yet, Washington-based public opinion firm QEV Analytics recently found that some 50% of regular churchgoing Catholics heard a statement during Mass setting forth the bishops' serious misgivings about the insurance mandate. Of all the Catholics who heard this statement, most apparently agreed with it.
HHS doesn't speak for me, or many women
Washington Post commentary by Helen Alvare
May 22, 2012
HHS is further suggesting that rather than allowing female employees of religious institutions to seek contraceptive coverage, a government-approved entity will simply provide it to them and all their female beneficiaries (minors included) “automatically” — and without any co-pay to tip off minors’ parents. This isn’t freedom. This is coercion, along with the undermining of parents’ duties and rights respecting their children.
Healthcare mandate endangers religious freedom
The Hill commentary by Jim Nicholson
May 18, 2012
This radical policy change will be devastating to religious organizations who are working to provide critical services to Americans in need. These institutions may now be forced to pay huge fines, be subject to unelected bureaucrats' defining their status, limiting their work, or even shutting them down altogether. This would not just impact the organizations themselves, but the millions of needy Americans whom these organizations serve.
The Religious Battle of Vanderbilt
Wall Street Journal commentary by John Murray, 4th Presby. School
May 10, 2012
The legislation follows Vanderbilt's decision to stop recognizing campus religious organizations that require their leaders to accept certain religious beliefs on which they are founded. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Vanderbilt Catholic, Navigators and other groups-ministering to about 1,500 students-would effectively be moved off campus in the name of "nondiscrimination."
Is Conscience Partisan?
Public Discourse commentary by Richard Doerflinger
April 15, 2012
During his final illness Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, stating, "I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field, and I'll continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone."
Will the Obamacare Decision Affect the HHS Mandate?
National Review Online commentary by Mark Rienzi
April 2, 2012
Last week's Supreme Court arguments over the Affordable Care Act focused on the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the expanded Medicaid entitlement. Could those cases also affect the religious-liberty lawsuits challenging the HHS abortion/sterilization/contraception mandate, which are now pending in many federal district courts? The short answer is: Maybe.
Put on your shoes; we can win this one
Breakpoint commentary by Chuck Colson:
March 19, 2012
This is a battle that is both crucial and winnable. The important thing is to keep the focus on where it belongs: religious freedom. The early polls where a reaction to the media's initial announcement that this was all about contraception, but the Catholic Bishops and everybody else has been working hard to educate them. And you need to continue to educate people that this is about religious liberty.
No mandate exemption for religious groups
Washington Times commentary by Richard Doerflinger
March 7, 2012
The Washington Times persists in reporting that the Obama administration has "agreed to exempt religion-affiliated universities, charities and hospitals" from its contraceptive coverage mandate ("Limbaugh apology garners bipartisan approval," Web, Sunday). However, this is not the case. On Feb. 10, the administration's controversial mandate and its incredibly narrow religious exemption were finalized "without change."
Obama's epic blunder on birth-control mandate
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson
February 13, 2012
The initial policy was a disaster. The partial retreat was more skilled. Obama's goal was not resolution but obfuscation. The contraceptive mandate was shifted from Catholic employers to insurance companies. Instead of being forced to buy an insurance product that violates their beliefs, religious institutions will be forced to buy an insurance product that contributes to the profits and viability of a company that is federally mandated to violate their beliefs. Creative accounting, it seems, can cover a multitude of sins.
