(CNN) - The University of Notre Dame and "a diverse group of plaintiffs" filed lawsuits Monday challenging the federal mandate that religious employers offer health insurance that includes coverage of contraceptives and birth control services, Notre Dame spokeswoman Shannon Chapla said.
The Notre Dame suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Northern Indiana, is one of a dozen filed Monday by 43 separate Catholic institutions in different federal courts around the United States, Chapla said.
The lawsuits are efforts to "vindicate the country's constitutional and traditional commitments to religious freedom and pluralism," Notre Dame law professor Richard W. Garnett said in a university statement.
The Catholic Church teaches that use of contraception is morally wrong.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuits Monday.
The Obama administration, in an attempt at a compromise, revised the rule to require health insurance companies - not employers - to provide contraception coverage, mollifying some Catholic critics. Other Catholic groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are not satisfied by the revised rule.
The suits contend that the regulations violate of the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal laws.
"This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives," Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins said in a message to his school. "For if we concede that the government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions."
The Archdiocese of Washington joined in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday. The plaintiffs also include Archbishop Carroll High School; Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington; the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington; and The Catholic University of America.
"There is no way out of the dilemma the mandate forces upon us," Washington Archdiocese Chancellor Jane Belford said. "Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and social service ministries employ and serve millions of people in this country and do so without regard to their religious beliefs. Under the government's new rules, religious organizations will face an impossible choice."
Source
The Notre Dame suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Northern Indiana, is one of a dozen filed Monday by 43 separate Catholic institutions in different federal courts around the United States, Chapla said.
The lawsuits are efforts to "vindicate the country's constitutional and traditional commitments to religious freedom and pluralism," Notre Dame law professor Richard W. Garnett said in a university statement.
The Catholic Church teaches that use of contraception is morally wrong.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuits Monday.
The Obama administration, in an attempt at a compromise, revised the rule to require health insurance companies - not employers - to provide contraception coverage, mollifying some Catholic critics. Other Catholic groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are not satisfied by the revised rule.
The suits contend that the regulations violate of the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal laws.
"This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives," Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins said in a message to his school. "For if we concede that the government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions."
The Archdiocese of Washington joined in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday. The plaintiffs also include Archbishop Carroll High School; Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington; the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington; and The Catholic University of America.
"There is no way out of the dilemma the mandate forces upon us," Washington Archdiocese Chancellor Jane Belford said. "Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and social service ministries employ and serve millions of people in this country and do so without regard to their religious beliefs. Under the government's new rules, religious organizations will face an impossible choice."
Source
Either take zero federal dollars and restrict your staff and student body to only like-minded Catholics or shut the hell up.
THIS!!! You can't have it both ways.
It amazes me (and not in a good way) that Catholic universities are so happy to accept non-Catholic students and their FEDERALLY FUNDED financial aid dollars, and Catholic hospitals are delighted to take non-Catholic patients and their FEDERALLY FUNDED medicare and medicaid dollars, but yet they insist that they shouldn't have to follow federal mandates regarding the treatment of their employees.
They personify the idea of wanting to have one's cake and eat it, too.
Meaning, it's not enough that they don't have to PAY for anyone's contraceptive coverage, but that the idea that anyone is getting contraceptives covered is something that they think they should be able to stop.
My list of reasons I'm happy I left the Catholic church grows longer every day.
Also, FUCK THEM, "birth control" (laughable because I'm celibate) is a medical necessity for me. And... just, the whole thing is based around "OH HEY WE'RE GOING TO MAKE WOMEN SUFFER." Fuckers.
Besides, if we were to look further into this; these are Catholic associated establishments. Why are they not private to begin with? Why are religious establishments actually using government money? Shouldn't they make it private so that they don't have to fall under the Separation of Church and State laws? I would think that privatizing it would be beneficial to them. Then the employee would knowingly agree to such terms such as not having birth control covered by insurance.
The whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.
I don't see why they don't do that instead of making a stink over a law that is made by our government that they are funded by. If they are funded by the government then they have to go by the universal views of our country.
Edited at 2012-05-22 01:04 am (UTC)
Very little in our society or economy is FULLY privatized.
And even if they are private, do they do not get to discriminate unless they have the religious exemption. (That is, a Catholic hospital cannot refuse to hire an African-American, or Jewish, or female surgeon. Contrast this with a church, which can hire whoever it wants, including only blue eyed blondes from Sweden.) The question is whether they can discriminate in what healthcare they provide, to men v. women. The government has said that birth control is part of the basic healthcare coverage that must be provided by any insurance plan. That's what they are objecting to.
I sort of have made the decision to not be involved with the Catholic Church anymore. I still believe that there is something up there and like the Bible in certain parts but the ridiculous like this is making me so angry. I haven't gone to mass in like 2.5 years so I think this hit the point.
Yeah, guys. You do. So respect that they don't subscribe to your religious tenets and don't force them to do so.
Okay, so, a related question. Someone I lock heads with argues that even if the religious institution itself is not obligated to pay extra for BC, the insurance company uses money from everyone who pays a premium or copay for anything to pay for said BC. Therefor, she says, she is being made to pay for someone's BC when she doesn't want to. So she says people should be able to choose a plan that excludes BC. I don't know enough about insurance to call bullshit. It seems to me that even if a big company had a plan excluding BC, the money paid to that plan would go to the company in total rather than staying in just that plan. I could be wrong. But something just seems off with the argument and I can't articulate it. Thoughts?
Ask her this... should she be denied a critical blood transfusion if Jehovah's Witnesses decided to make a stink about insurance covering something their religion considers wrong/sinful, and it was no longer covered? Or, what if Christian Scientists successfully got it codified that no one *really* needs to see a doctor?
If your (general you) personal moral beliefs dictate that you not use BC, not get transfusions, etc. fine. You're making your choices for yourself. You do not have nearly the same freedom to demand that everyone else adhere to your personal beliefs. I think people ought to be on BC unless they are actively looking to have kids, but I'd never support automatically installing a Mirena in every girl upon puberty.
We all pay for stuff we don't want to pay for. I know I won't ever need Viagra (being a female). So why should I have to pay for that coverage? This is the equivalent to her argument, and not quite as nonsensical-because one of these days she may NEED to take BC, either for actual birth control, or for one of the many other reasons to use it.
Another good argument to use on her is to tell her to drop her insurance and find a company that doesn't cover ANY form of BC. I guarantee you they are out there, even if they are operating under the radar.
Also that argument is dumb. The point of insurance is so that we can't opt out of paying for other people's stuff just because we don't want to. "I don't want to pay for pricy cancer treatments" "I don't want to pay for smoker's bills" etc.
(Also, A+ icon, OP.)
I admit I may be biased, since I basically worship Rachel Maddow. But it's brilliant, afaic!
Just admit that you want to stop anyone from doing what you disapprove of. Because ~religious liberty~? What about your employees' liberty? It's not coming straight out of your pocket, so it's no concern. And frankly, what difference does it make? Let's say you pay an employee and they spend that money on condoms - what can you do about it?