Posts tagged with: contraception

Notre_Dame_signEarlier today the Supreme Court threw out an appeals court decision that went against the University of Notre Dame over its religious objections to the Obamacare health law’s contraception requirement.

Last summer the high court ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores Ltd could, on religious grounds, seek exemptions from the contraception provision. Because this case, Notre Dame v. Burwell, was the only appeals court decision on the issue that pre-dated that ruling, the Supreme Court sent it back to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision ruling in light of the Hobby Lobby ruling.

Until now, Notre Dame was the only nonprofit religious ministry in the nation without protection from the HHS mandate. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the federal government has relied heavily on the decision against Notre Dame in courts around the country, arguing that it should be able to impose similar burdens on religious ministries like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

“This is a major blow to the federal government’s contraception mandate. For the past year, the Notre Dame decision has been the centerpiece of the government’s effort to force religious ministries to violate their beliefs or pay fines to the IRS,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed an amicus brief in the case. “As with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, this is a strong signal that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the government’s narrow view of religious liberty. The government fought hard to prevent this GVR, but the Supreme Court rejected their arguments.”



contraceptive-mandateToday the Department of Health and Human Services issued yet another revision regarding its contraception mandate. Details on the new regulations should be announced within a month. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Justice Department lawyers said in a brief filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that the federal government would issue new regulations in the next month that will apply to all nonprofit institutions that say the faith with which they are affiliated is opposed to the use of most forms of contraception.

“The Wheaton College injunction does not reflect a final Supreme Court determination,” the brief said. “Nevertheless, the Departments responsible for implementing the accommodations have informed us that they have determined to augment the regulatory accommodation process in light of the Wheaton College injunction and that they plan to issue interim final rules within a month. We will inform the Court when the rules are issued.”

A senior administration official said the details of the rules are still being worked out. But it is likely that the Supreme Court’s order will shape the new compromise arrangement, and that nonprofit institutions will be able to write a letter stating their objections, rather than filing a form. That would leave the federal government to work out how those employers get access to contraception coverage.

In reply to this news, Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, says:


single-payerFor those on the left side of the political spectrum, single-payer health care — a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs — is one of the most popular policy proposals in America. But the recent Hobby Lobby decision is reminding some liberal technocrats that giving the government full control over health care funding also gives the government control over what medical services will be funded.

As liberal pundit Ezra Klein explains:

Acton Institute President and Co-Founder Rev. Robert A. Sirico had a busy media day yesterday in the wake of the release of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius case. using the audio player below, you can listen to an interview with Rev. Sirico on The Michael Berry Show on Houston’s 740 AM KTRH radio where the impact of the decision is examined. Additionally, beyond the jump I’ve embedded Rev. Sirico’s appearance on Bloomberg TV’s Street Smart with Trish Regan, where he participated on a panel discussing the decision.


Elise Hilton

Elise Hilton speaks at San Chez Bistro in Grand Rapids, Michigan – April 8, 2014

On  Tuesday evening, Acton Communications Specialist Elise Hilton led a great discussion on the topic of “The Real War On Women” at Acton On Tap, held at San Chez Bistro in Downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Beginning in 2010, the phrase “War on Women” became common in political discussions in the United States. Primarily, it has been used by those on the left who believe that there is an orchestrated effort to keep birth control out of the hands of women, to make abortion illegal, and to place other restrictions on women and their health care.

Hilton contends that this is not the real “war on women,” and examines these issues in light of women’s health, along with other issues affecting girls and women, such as the erosion of our religious liberty, sexually objectifying women, human trafficking, gender-selective abortions and infanticide.

You can listen to the audio of Tuesday’s event via the audio player below.

contraception-253x300Until 2012, no federal law or regulation required employers to cover contraception or abortifacients in their company health plans. But last month a New York Times Times editorial claimed that “the assertion by private businesses and their owners of an unprecedented right to impose the owners’ religious views on workers who do not share them.”

What changed over the course of a year that now makes it a “war on contraceptives” to oppose adding such coverage? As Ramesh Ponnuru explains, it’s not really about contraceptives but an attack on religion:

If 2011 was marked by a widespread crisis of employers’ imposing their views on contraception on employees, nobody talked about it.

What’s actually new here is the Obama administration’s 2012 regulation requiring almost all employers to cover contraception, sterilization and drugs that may cause abortion. It issued that regulation under authority given in the Obamacare legislation.

The regulation runs afoul of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a Clinton-era law. That act says that the government may impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religious belief only if it’s the least restrictive way to advance a compelling governmental interest. The act further says that no later law should be read to trump this protection unless it explicitly says it’s doing that. The Affordable Care Act has no such language.

Is a marginal increase in access to contraception a compelling interest, and is levying steep fines on employers who refuse to provide it for religious reasons the least burdensome way to further it? It seems doubtful.

Read more . . .

contraception-253x300John Seager, president of Population Connection, has written an article at the Huffington Post regarding World Contraception Day. Entitled (and I don’t think he meant for this to be a non sequitur), “A World Without Contraception Is No Place For People,” Seager mournfully asks the reader to envision a world where there is no birth control because “right-wing anti-contraception crusaders” have gotten their way. Now, he says, sex is only for procreation. (I’m not sure where he got this assumption; even the Catholic Church, which tends to have the strictest teachings about such things notes that sex is both unitive and procreative, and that it’s meant for a husband and wife to enjoy. “Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church #2362) Seager dolefully notes: (more…)