Press coverage and commentaries: Freedom2Care In the News
July 15, 2014
Cynically titled the "Women's Health Protection Act of 2013," S. 1696 currently has 35 Senate co-sponsors. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal introduced the pro-abortion measure last November. S. 1696 is extreme, ideological, and biased. S. 1696 could be interpreted to trump state and federal conscience protections.
July 15, 2014
“We are writing to state our strong opposition to the misnamed ‘Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014’ (S. 2578),” wrote Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore and Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston in a letter to all U.S. senators on Monday. "In short, the bill does not befit a nation committed to religious liberty. Indeed, if it were to pass, it would call that commitment into question," the bishops wrote. The proposed legislation would force employers with group health plans to cover any "specific health care item" mandated by federal law or regulations despite religious liberty protections.
July 11, 2014
There is no "war on women" in America. But there absolutely is a war among women. And the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate is its biggest battlefield right now. The latest shot was fired by the National Organization for Women (NOW), who set all tact aside when they named the Little Sisters of the Poor among their "dirty 100" list for the nuns' opposition to the mandate. The Little Sisters run more than 200 homes for the poor and dying elderly around the world. If they are in any way dirty, it's from combing through the streets in search of people who have been completely cast aside by society to nurture them for the last days of their lives.
July 7, 2014
But the organizations say the accommodation provided by the administration does not go far enough because, though they are not on the hook financially, they remain complicit in the provision of government-approved contraceptives to women covered by their plans. "Anything that forces unwilling religious believers to be part of the system is not going to pass the test," said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents many of the faith-affiliated nonprofits. Hobby Lobby Inc., winner of its Supreme Court case last month, also is a Becket Fund client.
July 7, 2014
One of the hallmarks of religious liberty protections is that they protect people of all faiths, even if their beliefs seem unfounded, flawed, implausible, or downright silly. Recognition of a right to religious freedom does not, however, depend on religious skepticism, relativism, or indifferentism. Rather, it rests on the intelligible value of the religious quest-the activities of seeking to understand the truth about ultimate questions and conforming one's life accordingly with authenticity and integrity.
July 4, 2014
Two 5 to 4 decisions this week, on the final decision day of the Supreme Court's term, dealt with issues that illustrate the legal consequences of political tactics by today's progressives. One case demonstrated how progressivism's achievement, the regulatory state, manufactures social strife and can do so in ways politically useful to progressives. The other case arose from government coercion used to conscript unwilling citizens into funding the progressives' party.
July 4, 2014
Blind to the irony of its own assertion, The Times opines that the court "absurdly" held that "Hobby Lobby and the other companies qualified as 'persons,'" thus protected by 1st Amendment religious exercise rights. If the 1st Amendment did not apply to companies, The Times would have no right to free speech.
July 3, 2014
Even more encouraging for religious non-profits is the Court's discussion of the strong deference owed to the faithful's judgments about what their religion forbids in terms of complicity in wrongdoing and requires by way of integrity of witness. The Court pointedly refused to allow the government (or the principal dissent) to substitute its own view of these matters for that of Hobby Lobby, and made clear that the only role for the Court in this context is to confirm that the asserted beliefs are sincerely held. This signals that the Court is very likely to accept the claims of religious non-profits that the so-called accommodation, in particular the self-certification requirement, coerces them to facilitate immoral activities and impedes their ability to bear authentic witness to the truths that their faith affirms about the dignity of human life and the gift of conjugal love.
July 1, 2014
What do women on the bench think about the mandate? Most of them don't like it. So far, women judges in the lower courts have voted to stop the mandate 24 times. In only 15 cases have they voted to let it proceed. Yesterday's votes from the high court don't change the equation. Surprisingly, even after having been assaulted by the "war on women" rhetoric for two years, the average American woman still holds an unfavorable view of the contraceptive mandate. In poll after poll, more women oppose it than support it.
July 1, 2014
Ashley McGuire (The Catholic Association): Just because you're an employer doesn't mean you have to pay essentially fines or comply with something that violates your most deeply held beliefs. That doesn't mean that you're trying to deny anybody anything, but I think that that's our first freedom. The founders considered it our first freedom and for people of faith to feel like they can live in a diverse and pluralistic society and be respected for who they are, this is a huge victory.