NOW’sDirtyLittleSisters postedat12:01

NOW’s Dirty Little Sisters

posted at 12:01 pm on July 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Ah, sisterhood. Organizations like NOW love to proclaim it … except when it comes to actual Sisters. My Townhall colleague Christine Rousselle noticed yesterday that NOW listed the Little Sisters of the Poor among its “Dirty 100″ organizations who have the temerity to object to being forced to provide free contraception for their employees, whether that violates their religious beliefs or not. “Nothing quite says a “force for women’s rights” like attacking a group of women, am I right?” Christine asked. Kevin Daley at the Washington Examiner plumbs the irony of the attack on the LSP, who provide hospice care for the poor:

The order of nuns NOW finds “dirty” are the Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious institute for women founded by St. Jeanne Jugan in 19th century France. They are dedicated to care of the elderly impoverished, and describe their spiritual charism as “grace of hospitality toward the aged poor.”

Today the Little Sisters operate 200 homes on five continents, and serve over 13,000 residents. In a promotional video for the order, Sister Camille Rose said “We celebrate the gift of life, the joy of living, and we care for the elderly poor. We try to make them happy in whatever way we can.” The nuns themselves live communally and take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and hospitality.

As I write in my column for The Week, I’m a big fan of absurdity in politics … but this goes beyond the limit:

As part of its rationale, NOW offers such non-sequiturs as the percentage of Catholic women who have used birth control, which has nothing to do with the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church or the beliefs of the Little Sisters of the Poor. NOW also highlights the supposed acceptance of birth control by the Mennonites, another non-sequitur that is supposed to be a response to the Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood. The whole thing reads as a diatribe against the freedom of religious expression, which is all NOW has got besides the laughable argument that contraception is so inaccessible that nuns have to be forced to provide it to themselves.

Normally, one would expect an organization that considers itself the pre-eminent defender of women’s choices to, you know, defend the free choice of a group of women. Or NOW could have acknowledged the nuance of a group of Catholic nuns standing up for their choice to act according to their principles. That should especially be true since the Little Sisters of the Poor’s decision on how to structure their health insurance impacts no one but their own organization.

At the very least, one might have expected NOW to come up with a less pejorative name than “The Dirty 100″ when applied to the Little Sisters of the Poor. In any other context, that sounds an awful lot like a “war on women.”

Noah wrote earlier about the strategy by Democrats to make this their legislative priority between now and the midterm elections. Good luck with that, because Democrats already look out of touch and rudderless on issues that Americans actually do care about, such as the economy, jobs, and the federal budget deficit. Contraception doesn’t even make the list, because there hasn’t been a crisis in access to contraception in the first place. Republicans should be emphasizing that last point especially with the CDC’s data, and show that this is nothing more than an attempt to demagogue and distract from the failures of this administration, especially ObamaCare, which is the paternalistic father of the paternalistic HHS contraception mandate.

That’s the dirty little secret behind the dirty little campaign of the Democrats and NOW.

Update: Katie Pavlich has a new book out today called  Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women, in bookstores today. Katie skewers the whole “war on women” meme from Democrats and turns the table on them:

It’s time someone pointed out the hypocrisy and lies coming from the left about women. Democrats have run the conversation for too long and I’m out to debunk the sacred cows of the so-called Republican War on Women.

If liberals really believe women can protect themselves, then why do they oppose a woman’s right to carry a handgun for self defense? If Hillary Clinton is the ultimate female role model, then why has she built her political career on her husband’s philandering while silencing his many female whistleblowers? If Barack Obama is the most pro-woman president in history, then why does he seek to make women completely dependent on the government? If the right to an abortion gives women personal autonomy and sexual freedom, then why are its debilitating aftereffects overlooked? And finally, if Republicans are so insensitive to women, then why is the sexual lechery of politicians from Ted Kennedy to Bill Clinton defended, justified, covered up, or ignored?

Those on the left love to talk about women in one way, but in reality treat women in an entirely opposite, demeaning way full of broken promises and false hope. Through research, in-depth interviews and personal stories, I reveal the shocking truth about the Democratic Party’s anti-woman agenda on issues like gun control, healthcare, the economy, sexual assault and more.

Katie will join me on The Ed Morrissey Show today to discuss this at more length, so be sure to tune in at 4 ET!

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: HHS Contraception mandate, Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor, midterms, NOW

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Fireworks at Supreme Court over emergency injunction applied against “accommodation”

FireworksatSupremeCourtoveremergencyinjunctionapplied

Obama:We’reallaboutfreedomofreligion

Obama: We’re all about freedom of religion

posted at 12:21 pm on February 6, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, President Obama said that “freedom of religion is under threat … around the world.” That’s true, and we have spent considerable time in writing about the persecution of Christians here at Hot Air while most of the media and the Obama administration do their best to avoid the topic. But the freedom of religious expression as defined by Barack Obama in this clip is under attack here too … by Barack Obama (via Deacon Greg):

Today, we profess the principles we know to be true. We believe that each of us is “wonderfully made” in the image of God. We, therefore, believe in the inherent dignity of every human being — dignity that no earthly power can take away. And central to that dignity is freedom of religion — the right of every person to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith if they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do this free from persecution and fear.

Millions of Christians in the US believe that participation in birth control and abortion is sinful and evil, and goes against their religious beliefs.  Religious-oriented organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor, schools, and clinics are nonetheless mandated by Obama’s HHS to facilitate the provision of contraception and abortifacients if they employ and/or serve anyone else other than members of their own faith — essentially consigning “freedom of religion” and religious expression to the four walls of churches, chapels, synagogues, and temples. That’s hardly “free from persecution and fear,” especially when HHS and the White House threaten ruinous fines for organizations (and private companies owned and run by faithful Christians) who refuse to comply.

Even more ridiculously, Obama said this … apparently with a straight face:

Extremists succumb to an ignorant nihilism that shows they don’t understand the faiths they claim to profess — for the killing of the innocent is never fulfilling God’s will; in fact, it’s the ultimate betrayal of God’s will.

Put aside the issue of drone attacks for a moment, which may be necessary but certainly produce the “killing of the innocent.” How about the killing of 55 million innocents since Roe v Wade, and the industrial killing of these innocent children by businesses like Planned Parenthood, whom Obama lauds?

The marginalization of faith has a long history of coinciding with the growth of government power, as my colleague at The Week Damon Linker notes. He wonders if progressives haven’t begun to overplay their hand and started down the Jacobin path:

When liberals act that way, they run the risk of turning themselves into latter-day Jacobins, the anti-religious zealots who dominated the French Revolution during its most radical phase. In its most violent form, this monistic, comprehensive version of secularism outlawed religion, ransacked and desecrated churches, and decreed that priests were to be murdered on sight — all in the name of freedom. In contemporary France, the ideological descendants of the Jacobins uphold the French “republican” ideal of secular government by banning head scarves and other overt religious displays in public.

The United States has typically been friendlier to faith. The form of liberalism embodied in its Constitution is pluralistic, not monistic. It tolerates broad differences among citizens about the highest good, and assumes that claims to metaphysical truth will proliferate under conditions of political freedom. The last thing a pluralistic liberal would do is seek to stamp out these religious and moral differences in the name of homogenous adherence to a single vision of the good. …

In case there’s any doubt: I support gay marriage, and I have no objection to birth control. But I also believe that a free society should permit its members to disagree on these issues. And that when liberals use the government’s coercive powers to force believers to change their views or act against their most deeply held spiritual convictions, liberals (paradoxically) commit an act of illiberalism.

In such cases, the government stamps out differences in the name of respecting differences. After all, a traditionalist Christian, Jew, or Muslim ceases to be a traditionalist the moment he or she is made to endorse behavior or beliefs that traditionalist Christians, Jews, or Muslims hold to be wrong. That is something that no genuine liberal should be comfortable doing.

It’s not paradoxical, and it’s not uncommon. Damon could look at what happened in Mexico a century ago with its anti-clerical pursuit in the name of socialist “liberalism,” which resulted in the Cristiada war and still restricts religious expression to the confines of a church. The problem results when government extends its authority into the jurisdiction of the private lives of its citizens and imposes mandates for their choices. That will always run up against religious liberty — and usually, that’s by design. The entire point is to reduce religion to a social club, because those who want to keep expanding government to dictate outcomes want no competition from God as an authority on how life should be lived.

Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, contraception, HHS mandate, Little Sisters of the Poor, prayer, religious freedom

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

SCOTUSextendsstayonLittleSisterscase

SCOTUS extends stay on Little Sisters case

posted at 6:01 pm on January 24, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The first Supreme Court stay of the HHS contraception mandate, issued by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on New Years Eve, was a pause in the proceedings in order for the court to consider whether the Little Sisters of the Poor would suffer significant damage if forced to comply while their challenge is on appeal. Today, the whole court issued a stay of more significance — one that extends to another group suing to block enforcement:

The Supreme Court said on Friday that, while litigation continues, the federal government may not enforce a part of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law that requires employers to provide insurance covering contraception against an order of nuns and one other Roman Catholic Church-affiliated group.

The court said, however, that the groups in question must first notify the Department of Health and Human Services in writing that they object to the so-called contraception mandate.

The Washington Post has the full order, which is brief enough. Note the caveat:

The Court issues this order based on all of the circumstances of the case, and this order should not be construed as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits.

However, in order for a court to issue a stay, there generally has to be two measures met. First, the applicant has to have a real chance at winning the argument, and there has to be demonstrable and significant damage resulting from a denial of a stay. If the court agrees that the Little Sisters and the Christian Brothers (the other plaintiff) both have a real chance of prevailing on the merits and will suffer damage without injunctive relief, then it seems that the Supreme Court is at least open to their case.

Gabriel Malor, as usual, warns to keep things in perspective:

Reminder: the Little Sister's case is about the contraception mandate *accommodation,* as opposed to the mandate itself.

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) January 24, 2014

The accommodation is what is supposed to allow the mandate to pass muster in regard to religious freedom, though. If that fails, the mandate will have a difficult time standing, too. And keep in mind that for technical reasons related to the insurance used by the Little Sisters, theirs isn’t the strongest legal challenge eventually coming to the Supreme Court.

Update: Ed Whelan notes that this order was apparently unanimous:

Without recorded dissent, the Supreme Court has enjoined the federal government from enforcing the HHS mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor and their co-plaintiffs during the pendency of their Tenth Circuit appeal. More precisely, injunctive relief is available to each plaintiff if it informs HHS in writing that it is a nonprofit organization that holds itself out as religious and that it has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. …

It would seem that all nine justices are now part of that Catholic conspiracy that was the target of Jamie Stiehm’s idiotic anti-Catholic rant.

Speaking of which, here’s Gabriel again:

That was a really long time to come to make a decision without any dissent.

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) January 24, 2014

A lot of thought went into it, and perhaps (although not necessarily) debate, too. Interesting. Meanwhile, the Becket Fund is pretty happy with the result. Here’s their whole statement:

Washington, D.C. –  Today the Little Sisters of the Poor received an injunction from the Supreme Court protecting them from the controversial HHS mandate while their case is before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The injunction means that the Little Sisters will not be forced to sign and deliver the controversial government forms authorizing and instructing their benefits administrator to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and drugs and devices that may cause early abortions (see video). The Court’s order also provides protection to more than 400 other Catholic organizations that receive health benefits through the same Catholic benefits provider, Christian Brothers.

“We are delighted that the Supreme Court has issued this order protecting the Little Sisters,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund.  “The government has lots of ways to deliver contraceptives to people–it doesn’t need to force nuns to participate.”

To receive protection, the Supreme Court said that the Little Sisters and other organizations that receive benefits through Christian Brothers must simply inform HHS of their religious identity and objections. The Court said that the Little Sisters did not have to sign or deliver the controversial government forms that authorize and direct their benefits administrator to provide the objectionable drugs and devices.

The order was issued by the entire Supreme Court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is the Justice assigned for emergency applications from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, had previously issued a temporary injunction to allow the court time to consider the Little Sisters’ emergency appeal, filed on New Years’ Eve.

Prior to the order, injunctions had been awarded in 18 of the 19 similar cases in which relief had been requested.

“Virtually every other party who asked for protection from the mandate has been given it,” said Rienzi.  “It made no sense for the Little Sisters to be singled out for fines and punishment before they could even finish their suit.”

The Little Sisters are joined in the lawsuit by religious health benefit providers, Christian Brothers Services, Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust.  The lawsuit is a class action on behalf of all the non-exempt organizations that receive benefits through Christian Brothers. The Plaintiffs are also represented by Locke Lord, a national law firm, and by Kevin Walsh, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

To date, there are currently 91 lawsuits challenging the unconstitutional HHS mandate. The Becket Fund represents: Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor, GuideStone, Wheaton College, East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, Colorado Christian University, the Eternal Word Television Network, Ave Maria University, and Belmont Abbey College.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 19 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. The Becket Fund recently won a 9-0 Supreme Court victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of “the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”

Update: Gabriel posts a rebuttal at AoSHQ to those who somehow considered this a defeat for the Little Sisters. UCI professor Rich Hasen argued that the requirement to object in writing to HHS to get coverage under the stay triggers the birth control coverage, but that’s nonsense:

First, the coverage the Little Sisters object to is not triggered by giving HHS notification, as contemplated by the Supreme Court order. Rather, it is triggered “[i]f a third party administrator receives a copy of the self-certification,” i.e., the accommodation form that organizations objecting to the contraception mandate have to fill out. You can check me on this, if you like (PDF). The Supreme Court order specifically says that the Little Sisters notification to HHS does not have to use the accommodation form or provide it to their third-party administrator. Thus, providing an alternative notification to HHS does not trigger the objectionable contraceptive coverage.

Also, contrary to Hasen, the insurance companies aren’t even in this. The Little Sisters use a self-insured health plan, which has a third-party administrator, again as specifically stated in the Supreme Court order, not an insured group health plan. The different types of plans have different requirements.

Read it all.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Tags: contraception, HHS mandate, Little Sisters of the Poor, ObamaCare, religious freedom, Supreme Court

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair