Thoughts on the HHS Mandate

I meant to post this when the mandate went into effect last week, but I was a bit distracted.  The issues are as relevant as ever, though.  This isn't about contraception.  This is about the state coercion of religious institutions, and this is not okay.  Hey, Sebelius et al - religious freedom?  You're doing it wrong.  (And as I think I've said before, we're all Catholics now.)

One Chick-fil-A Rant Worth a Look

Pretty much, yeah. Remember this too. FOCUS. Both sides are flailing around in their divisive, overheated, media-enabled moral outrage that's as much about display as anything else. Everybody just calm the heck down and have an ice cream.  Good grief, people. There's one more thing I want to add for the most histrionic on both sides: the fact that somebody does not agree with you does not automatically mean that s/he (a) is evil or stupid or morally degenerate, (b) hates you and wants to destroy you, or (c) must be suppressed in the name of some faux idea of whatever.  A person who disagrees with you is still a person.  Special note to the dipstick politicians: SHAME ON YOU.

A Law Prof Ponders the HHS Mandate Catholic Lawsuit

You recall the recent slate of lawsuits filed by 43 Catholic institutions.  I had previously linked to an opinion by a Hahvahd law professor.  

Now here are some thoughts by a professor of constitutional law at the Catholic University of America as he eviscerates the New York Times' editorial on the subject: "The Times is wrong in every conceivable way about the mandate, religious-liberty law, and the lawsuits."  Oh, my!

The HHS Mandate, the Catholic Lawsuit, and "We're All Catholics Now"

Here are a few more thoughts about the massive slate of 12 lawsuits filed yesterday by 43 Catholic institutions including the University of Notre Dame. Blurbs:

Nerd News: University of Notre Dame Joins Catholic Lawsuit Against HHS Mandate

Here is some context.  Here is Notre Dame's legal complaint.  Here is a statement from the university president, Fr. John Jenkins:

Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about:  it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services.  Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives.  As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs.  And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents.  We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so. 

This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives.  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.  For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements.  If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.