Washington D.C., Mar 23, 2016 / 04:56 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Hundreds of people – many of them women – joined religious sisters outside of the Supreme Court on Wednesday chanting “Let them Serve! Let them Serve!”  The protes... Read more

Washington D.C., Mar 23, 2016 / 02:29 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious charities should be free to carry out their ministries without having to violate their religious beliefs, plaintiffs argued at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.  “This morning we heard the justices of the Supreme Court comment on the fact that members of many minority religions across the country have stood with the Little Sisters of the Poor, asking the government to do the very simple and right thing here, which is just if the government wants to provide these [contraceptive] services, the government is free to provide them,” stated Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor, at a press conference outside the Court after the oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell.   The government has other ways to provide contraceptive coverage for employees than forcing religious non-profits to do so, he stressed. “And in every other court case where the government has come before this court and talked about its [health] exchanges, it has told the Court that they are wonderful, they are cheap, they are easy to use, they are affordable, they are great. And all the Little Sisters are asking today is that the government uses all its other programs to provide the services it wants.” The case Zubik v. Burwell is a combination of seven cases before the court against the “accommodation” offered to religious non-profits by the Obama administration regarding its federal contraception mandate. Plaintiffs include the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Archdiocese of Washington, Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, and several Christian colleges.  Employers have to include contraception coverage in their employee health plans, according to the mandate. Only churches and their auxiliaries are exempt, thus forcing many religious charities and non-profits like the Little Sisters to provide the coverage they believe to be morally objectionable.  The administration’s “accommodation” is a process by which objecting parties send a form to the government notifying them of their objection. The government then instructs the party’s insurance company – or third-party authority for self-insured entities – to provide the coverage separately. This separates the charities from the objectionable process of providing contraception coverage, the government contends. Paul D. Clement, arguing for the Little Sisters and their fellow petitioners before the court on Wednesday, said this process still demands more than a simple opt-out. It forces the Little Sisters and other religious charities to fill out a form they know will ultimately facilitate access to birth control against their religious beliefs, he said. The government also enforces this measure with “massive penalties,” he added. The Little Sisters could pay up to $70 million a year in fines if the mandate goes into effect and they do not comply with accommodation.  However, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued during the hearing, “the insurer or the TPA is then not dealing with the employer at all.” The employer “could say, ‘I fill out the form. I do not authorize. I do not permit. It won't make any difference’.” “It makes all the difference, Justice Ginsburg,” Clement countered. “If we don’t provide the form, then the coverage doesn’t flow.”  Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded that tension between laws and the religious beliefs of persons is inevitable, and that if all requests for religious exemption from laws were honored, government actions could not be enforceable.  “Because every believer that's ever come before us, including the people in the military, are saying that ‘my soul will be damned in some way’,” she said of requests for religious exemptions from laws and actions like a military draft. If that burden will “always” be “substantial,” she added, and all religious exemptions are honored, “how will we ever have a government that functions?” Aside from a cloistered monk or hermit, Justice Stephen Breyer noted, a “religious person” living in society may “have to accept all kinds of things that are just terrible for him.” Quakers must pay taxes for a war they conscientiously object to, he said. Religious people against blasphemy might not like First Amendment protections of it.  Noel Francisco, also arguing for the plaintiffs, said that religious non-profits should get the same protections as churches, which are exempt from the mandate.  Justice Elena Kagan pressed him on expanding religious exemptions to charities and non-profits.  “I thought there was a very strong tradition in this country, which is that when it comes to religious exercises, churches are special,” she said. If these religious protections are expanded to include “all religious people,” she argued, “then the effect of that is that Congress just decides not to give an exemption at all.” Francisco also argued that because the health care law exempts many entities like small businesses from having to provide health insurance, and exempts the plans of large corporations from the mandate by “grandfathering” them in to the health care law’s regulations, the government may not be able to establish a “compelling interest” for contraception coverage since so many health plans don’t provide it.  Even if it does establish this interest, he continued, it has other means of facilitating access to contraception including through plans on the public exchanges that offer contraception coverage or through Title X family planning funding.  Another point of contention was the fact that, according to the IRS tax code, churches and their auxiliaries are exempt from the HHS mandate but religious non-profits, who must fill out a 990 form, are not.  The plaintiffs argued that there is no essential difference between these groups and both should receive exemptions because of their religious status. “The line they’ve drawn here is absurd,” Clement said of the administration exempting churches and their integrated auxiliaries but not religious non-profits.  There is no substantial difference between these groups, he added; the only difference is that one group, non-profits, fills out a 990 form. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing for the administration, said the government has a compelling interest to require employer-based contraception coverage, and every alternative that has been proposed defeats Congress’ purpose of ensuring low-cost birth control access for all women without the hassle of co-pays or obtaining separate health plans for contraception.  Furthermore, he cited an Institute of Medicine report claiming that widespread contraception access was in the public good, lowering the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions.  Chief Justice John Roberts discussed whether the mandate posed a substantial burden on the plaintiffs by “hijacking” their own health plans. Clement had argued that the government was indeed hijacking the insurance plans, saying that “it’s a little rich for the government to say ‘this isn’t your plan, don’t worry about this’.” “In other words, the Petitioner has used the phrase ‘hijacking,’ and it seems to me that that's an accurate description of what the government wants to do,” Roberts said. “They want to use the [insurance] mechanism that the Little Sisters and the other Petitioners have set up to provide services because they want the [contraception] coverage to be seamless.” The Little Sisters “do not object to the fact that the people who work for them will have these services provided,” he added. “They object to having them provided through the mechanism that they have set up because they think, you know, whether you or I or anybody else thinks, they think that that complicity is sinful.” “Can you explain why you don't see this as a hijacking?” Justice Sotomayor asked Verrilli.  Verrilli argued that the government is “ensuring” that employees “get what the law entitles them to,” while “ensuring” that employers do “not have any legal obligation to pay for the coverage, to provide the coverage in any way.” The funding for the contraception coverage is done separately from the employer, he argued. The insurer is listing the coverage cost separately from the other employer-provided coverage.  However, Justice Alito noted, the sisters’ third-party insurance issuer would also not comply with the mandate if it is enforced.  And many religious groups, including some Muslims, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews and American Indians, have supported the Little Sisters saying the mandate and its so-called accommodation present an “unprecedented threat to religious liberty in this country.” “Ladies and gentleman, the fate of the Little Sisters is the fate of every American,” Kristina Arriaga, executive director of the Becket Fund, stated outside the court after Wednesday’s arguments. “They [the Little Sisters] serve the poor, they feed the hungry. We at Becket join millions of Americans who are asking the Court to let them serve,” she added. Read more

New York City, N.Y., Mar 23, 2016 / 03:06 am (CNA/EWTN News).- If diplomacy and policy-making are to be successful, all women – including those who are often left out of the conversation – must have a voice in the process, a Holy See representative told the United Nations. “Empowering women means creating the conditions necessary for them to flourish, in full acceptance of and in accordance with their natural genius as women, and in harmonious complementarity with the gifts of men,” Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, said March 18. “Empowering women and girls will greatly help the world community not to leave anyone behind, and their empowerment will empower us all,” he said. He gave his remarks during the deliberations of the 60th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women of the United Nations. This session's focus was “Women's Empowerment and the Link to Sustainable Development.” Archbishop Auza focused on the idea that “no one will be left behind” as found in the commitment of the Member States in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Women, he said, must be recognized for their "vital role ... in preventive diplomacy, mediation, peacekeeping and peace-building processes, as well as their growing presence in policy-making bodies and advocacy groups." However, elderly women, mothers, and pre-born girls, the archbishop said, are especially vulnerable to sex-based discrimination. Instead of being seen as critical policy priorities, elderly women's needs are frequently overlooked leading these women to feel “unwanted and, in some cases, leaving them vulnerable to the pressures of assisted suicide.” “An exaggerated focus on economic productivity and the decline of family values are leaving elderly women even farther behind,” he said. Elderly women should be made to “feel welcome and productive in their own way” by making their wisdom available for the whole of society, Archbishop Auza said. In a similar way, he said, mothers face discrimination when their “essential contribution to the development of society through motherhood is not adequately acknowledged, appreciated, advanced and defended.” This prejudice, oftentimes by way of cultural and legal pressures, forces women to choose between a career and motherhood. On behalf of his delegation, Archbishop Auza said he wanted to thank “all women who have raised generations of responsible daughters and sons.” Girls in the womb also face discrimination, even before they have the chance to be born. Abortion and in-vitro fertilization have been used to “selectively eliminate girls, leading to unnatural sex-ratio-at-birth disparities” causing a deficit of more than 160 million girls compared to boys, he said. After addressing the concerns of these groups of women, Archbishop Auza emphasized the importance of ensuring access to education and healthcare for women and girls, which he called indispensable. He pointed out that the Catholic Church, “through its vast network of 250,000 schools, 23,500 clinics and hospitals, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs,” the majority of which are located in developing nations and areas of conflict, is the “largest education and health provider in the world.” Women’s healthcare must be provided “in accord with their feminine humanity and dignity,” he said, adding that it “would be contradictory to seek to empower women while suppressing their natural potentialities.” Women in need should not only be the beneficiaries of aid, but they should "above all ... be empowered to become dignified agents of their own development and important drivers of sustainable development." Read more

Salt Lake City, Utah, Mar 23, 2016 / 12:34 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Despite the challenges facing the United States, Catholics and Mormons can work together – with St. Augustine as a model, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput said Tuesday at Brigham Young U... Read more

Washington D.C., Mar 22, 2016 / 04:52 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Members of the United States Congress have voiced their support for the Little Sisters of the Poor before their case is argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “We talk a lot about public service up here. Well, these are the people who live it,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) said of the sisters on the House Floor on Tuesday, noting that they serve the poor in 31 countries. “They are the definition of public service.” On Wednesday, oral arguments for Zubik v. Burwell will take place at the Supreme Court. The case is a bundle of seven cases against the HHS mandate, including as plaintiffs Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Archdiocese of Washington, and several Christian colleges. At issue is the administration’s mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage in employee health plans, and the ensuing “accommodations” they offered religious non-profits to comply with the mandate. The Affordable Care Act in 2010 required that preventive services be covered in employer health plans. In its guidelines released in 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services stated that these services included sterilizations and contraceptives, including some drugs considered abortifacients. They crafted narrow religious exemptions for churches and their affiliates (such as parish groups and schools) using tax law. Religious non-profits who objected to having to provide the coverage, however, were not exempt from the mandate. The administration then offered an “accommodation” for these objecting non-profits. The non-profits would send a form to the government stating their objection, and the government would then notify their insurer, who would provide the coverage at a separate cost. Plaintiffs such as the Little Sisters, however, argue that they would still be cooperating with actions they believe are seriously immoral by facilitating the contraception coverage. Faced with steep fines for not complying with the mandate, and with no other option than violating their conscience, they took the case to court. Institutions that are not exempt from the mandate include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, dioceses, Catholic universities, adoption agencies, hospitals, and charities such as the Little Sisters. Hundreds of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against the federal government over the mandate. If the mandate goes into effect, the penalty for not providing the contraception and sterilization coverage could be up to $70 million a year for the Little Sisters. However, health plans of large corporations such as Visa and PepsiCo are exempt from the mandate as they were “grandfathered” into the law’s requirements. An estimated one in three Americans are exempt from the mandate’s requirements. Members of Congress held a press conference Tuesday afternoon supporting the Little Sisters in the name of religious freedom. “This is not a partisan issue. This cannot be a partisan issue. It is a fundamental right,” Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) said of the case and of the freedom of Americans to practice their religion in public. “The Supreme Court has the opportunity to stand up for this fundamental right of all human beings, a right that’s guaranteed to us here in the Constitution,” he added. “It seems fitting that the case should be heard by our nation’s highest court during Holy Week,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.). She added that “neither religious belief nor practice ends at the threshold of a house of worship.” “For me, it brings to mind Pope Benedict’s words about how ‘Charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to others, but is part of the Church’s nature, an indispensable expression of her very being,’” she said, quoting Benedict XVI's 2005 encyclical on Christian love, Deus caritas est. “The people who serve in these ministries have dedicated their lives to living out their religious convictions, and they, not the government, are the best guide for what violates those principles.” “I can tell you that there is precious little in this world that is more pure or worthwhile than their ministry,” Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said of the Little Sisters. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) recalled a conversation he shared with Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, Mother Provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor: “She said ‘I can’t sign a piece of paper that makes somebody else do what I cannot do myself. It’s my conscience, you know.’” Read more