The number of lawsuits against the Obama administration over a rule
forcing employers to provide insurance covering contraceptives and
possible abortifacient drugs reached 40 this week, when a medical supply
company in Minnesota filed a complaint on Nov. 5.
Stuart Lind, who owns Annex Medical, Inc., is a Catholic dedicated to
“conducting business in a way that is pleasing to God and is faithful to
Biblical principles and values,” according to court documents. He says
the mandate is forcing him to violate his religious beliefs.
“This case follows the successful challenges of the (Health and Human
Services) mandate by for-profit businesses in other states,” said Erick
Kaardal of the Minneapolis-based law firm Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A.,
one of the attorneys representing Lind. “We are the first to file in
Minnesota. We hope to have the Constitution applied to protect business
owners’ religious liberties elsewhere.”
The Obama administration gave secular businesses until this past August
to comply with the mandate. Faith-based organizations, including
Catholic hospitals, universities and ministries, have a so-called “safe
harbor” extension that gives them until August 2013 to find a way to
comply.
Annex Medical refuses to adhere to the mandate and will drop its
insurance plan altogether by Jan. 31, unless courts provide relief, the
law firm stated.
Tom Janas, a businessman and entrepreneur, is another plaintiff in Annex
Medical, Inc. et al. v. Sebelius. Earlier this year, Janas, who also is
Catholic, sold his company, Roffe Container, Inc., to a competitor
after learning he would be forced to violate his religious beliefs in
order to comply with the HHS mandate. Janas plans to purchase another
business in 2013, and is suing for relief from the mandate.
The 40 lawsuits against the Obama administration currently comprise more than 110 plaintiffs.
Last week, a federal court in Oklahoma heard arguments from Hobby Lobby,
the largest corporation so far to challenge the mandate. The Becket
Fund for Religious Liberties, which is representing Hobby Lobby, said a
ruling on the request not to be forced to comply while the lawsuit
proceeds is expected in the next few weeks. Should the court grant the
request, Hobby Lobby would be the third company to receive temporary
relief from the mandate.
Contact: Bethany Monk
Source: CitizenLink
ADF today is in federal court in the nation's capital defending Tyndale
House Publishers in the first post-election challenge to the HHS
mandate.
Based on its biblical convictions, Tyndale objects to the requirement
that it provide free insurance coverage for drugs that cause abortions.
The Bible publisher actually filed suit October 2 on behalf of the Carol
Stream, an Illinois-based organization that is owned by a foundation.
As OneNewsNow reported earlier, the largest privately held Christian
publisher of Bibles, Christian books and biblical media is not
considered "religious" -- even though it is a non-profit foundation that
provides grants to meet physical and spiritual needs of people
worldwide.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Matt Bowman tells OneNewsNow very serious constitutional issues are at stake.
"Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish," Bowman contends.
"For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is
alarming. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is
willing to disregard the Constitution's protection of religious freedom
to achieve certain political purposes."
The foundation that owns Tyndale distributes 96.5 percent of its profits
to religious non-profit causes worldwide. Still, the publisher is
subject to the mandate because the Obama administration rules for-profit
corporations as categorically non-religious.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
With the re-election of Barack Obama, the international pro-life movement faces more threats
As Barack Obama prepares for another term as America's president, Human
Life International President Father Shenan J. Boquet is calling on
pro-lifers around the world to stay vigilant, to pray, and not to give
up hope.
"Under the most radical anti-life president America has ever seen, the
U.S. taxpayers have funded a destructive foreign policy, which has
already done great harm around the world," said Father Boquet. "But we
must continue to fight for those who cannot defend themselves, and we
cannot lose hope, because the Lord of Life is on our side.
"We need prayer now more than ever for our unborn brothers and sisters
around the world facing death due to the policies of the Obama
administration, and for those facing persecution for daring to spread
the Gospel of Life," Father Boquet said. "May Our Lord Jesus Christ give
us the strength to run the race and win the fight for life."
Contact: Stephen Phelan
Source: Human Life International
Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, issued the following statement about President Obama's re-election:
"The collision course of the Obama Administration with the Catholic
Church could have been averted, but now it is assured instead.
"It is therefore time to recommit ourselves to the basics: a clear
proclamation of the truth, an uncompromising fidelity to our principles,
and an unwavering commitment to civil disobedience.
"Many in Church leadership failed to connect the dots between personnel
and policy. They prayed and preached against the HHS mandate, but then
were silent about the election, and called the police to remove citizens
who leafleted the Church parking lot trying to inform voters about
where the candidates stood on this issue.
"Meanwhile, the national pro-life groups have done outstanding work in
this year's election, with initiatives, creativity, and energy as great
as I have ever seen, and there is no doubt that the election results
would have been far worse without that activity.
"The pro-life cause will prevail in America. In the elections of 2014,
we will work for a pro-life Senate majority to further blunt the ability
of President Obama to damage the cause of life.
"And in the meantime we will continue the cultural progress that is so
clearly on the side of life, as more minds and hearts embrace the
unborn, as more abortion mills close, and as more women and men speak up
about how abortion harmed them.
Contact: Leslie Palma
Source: Priests for Life
Despite pro-life setbacks in the Nov. 6 election, there is still hope
and ample opportunity for progress in promoting a culture of life in the
coming years, pro-life advocates are saying.
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, explained
that the election “confirmed for every pro-lifer that we cannot rely on
politicians to abolish abortion.”
“We first must change the culture and then the culture will shape our politicians and laws,” she told CNA.
On Nov. 6, President Barack Obama was elected to a second term by the
American people after committing himself to furthering tax-payer funded
abortion without restrictions.
Deep political divisions between the U.S. House and Senate also make it
unlikely that major federal pro-life legislation will pass in the coming
years.
At the state level, a Florida measure that would have prevented taxpayer
funds for paying for abortions failed, while a parental notification
law for girls under 16 seeking an abortion in Montana was passed. An
attempt to repeal the death penalty in California also failed to win
voter approval.
But Hawkins believes there is still important work to be done in changing minds and hearts across America.
The election “showed that we can't be afraid to talk about these ‘hard
issues,’” she said, pointing to the Democratic Party’s strong emphasis
on abortion at its national convention and throughout the campaign.
The Republican Party failed to respond with an equally strong emphasis,
she said, and exit polls indicate that “there were a lot of pro-lifers
missing” on Election Day.
“We need to march forward, courageously, doing what we have been doing
for the past four years,” Hawkins asserted. She listed her priorities as
reaching out to women in need, spreading the pro-life message and
working through local efforts to expose and de-fund Planned Parenthood
and remove its presence from schools.
“We need to work to develop better alternative and resource centers in
our communities, so no women is ever forced to sacrifice her kids to and
to put her life in the hands of Planned Parenthood,” she added.
Hawkins also stressed the importance of reaching out to young people.
While support for Obama was down from 2008 among young voters, the
president still captured a significant majority of the youth voting
bloc.
“There is much more work to be done educating young people about abortion,” she said.
While Gallup polls indicate that this generation of young people is
pro-life, it can be difficult for them – having been taught all their
lives that truth is relative – to move from the understanding that
abortion is wrong to the conviction that abortion should be illegal, she
explained.
“We must continue forward, speaking to our young people about their
worldview, why life is intrinsically valuable, and how making a horrific
act such as abortion illegal is the morally right thing to do,” she
said.
Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, agreed
that there is a need to continue building on the “dramatic success”
achieved in the past decade.
The election was definitely a loss for the pro-life movement, she said,
but the good news is that groups like Americans United for Life have a
“clear, direct and strategic plan” for moving ahead.
Despite the hostile atmosphere at the national level, there is
significant hope for pro-life advances at the state level, she
explained.
In the past four years, Americans United for Life has promoted the
passage of nearly 100 pieces of pro-life legislation in states across
America, including sonogram laws, clinic regulations and other abortion
restrictions.
“We’re seeing a tidal wave of pro-life legislation sweep across the
country,” Yoest said, noting that the “accumulation of victories” is
encouraging.
While she acknowledged that it would be good to have Supreme Court
justices who respect the right to life, she added that it is still
possible to navigate around the court’s infamous 1973 decision and
“start legislating for a post-Roe America.”
Yoest also pointed to the importance of changing minds and hearts through one-on-one engagement with women in need.
She cited efforts to partner with pregnancy care centers to show women
that although abortion may be a legal option, it is not a good option.
“By working with those women, we shape the culture,” she explained.
Contact: Michelle Bauman
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Two states have pro-life amendments under way, as Mississippi gets set to launch another petition drive for a Personhood Amendment -- and Florida prepares to vote on a proposed pro-life constitutional amendment on Tuesday.
Mississippi's Amendment 26 failed to gain voter approval in last November's election, but that won't stop a renewed effort. Les Riley of Personhood Mississippi tells OneNewsNow the group actually started working on a new campaign the day after the 2011 election.
"The main job has been researching and listening to what voters had to say, what their objections were [to Amendment 26]," he describes. "We're working on another amendment that will address all the concerns that people had, but still protect all children."
That's because in the weeks preceding the 2012 election, Planned Parenthood and even then Governor Haley Barbour confused the issues related to the amendment, according to Riley.
"They said that it would ban birth control and all kinds of other craziness to try to scare people," Riley explains. "Because, you know, Planned Parenthood didn't want people to have an up-or-down vote on banning abortion -- because they knew if they did they would have voted to stop abortion in our state."
According to Mississippi law, a constitutional amendment that fails cannot return to the ballot for two years. Riley hopes to make an announcement soon on launching a new petition drive in early 2013 to put a revised Personhood Amendment on a 2014 ballot.
And in The Sunshine State ...
In a campaign similar to Mississippi's recent campaign for the Personhood Amendment, Florida is presenting the pro-life Amendment 6 for a vote on the 2012 ballot. Yes on 6 Campaign manager Jim Frankowiak tells OneNewsNow the measure has the usual list of opponents, including Planned Parenthood and the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He explains what the amendment would do for the pro-life cause in Florida.
"We want to align Florida law with federal law," he says. "That means no government funds for abortion or health benefit coverage of an abortion. And perhaps of even greater importance is opening the door to future legislation that would restore parental consent for abortion involving a minor female."
At present, Florida does not require parental consent in such cases.
"So a young lady under the age of 18 does not have to tell her parents or guardian if she plans to have an abortion," Frankowiak remarks. "Current law does not require parental notification. It takes 60 percent of the vote in Florida for approval of a constitutional amendment."
Florida's Amendment 6 has been endorsed by many people, including former Governor Jeb Bush, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Baptist Convention and Florida Family Action.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
We are told repeatedly that assisted suicide will be a mere "last resort" that needs to be available as an escape valve when nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering. Never mind that countries in which the populations have embraced assisted suicide/euthanasia, life-terminating practices have expanded to people with disabilities and chronic illnesses, the elderly "tired of life," the mentally ill and depressed–and even widely acknowledged (if still technically illegal) infanticide.
Yet, here in the USA, we are supposed to believe the death agenda is just a teensy-weensy, itty-bitty, miniscule adjustment in medical norms.
Baloney. Assisted suicide advocates are just following the well-worn path of cultural transforming campaigns; insist that there should be little fuss about a minor change about which we need to "have a conversation"–until the radicals control the castle walls. Then the hammer comes down, the minor change grows exponentially, and the conversation is stifled.
But now, with Massachusetts perhaps poised to pass an assisted suicide legalization initiative, we are seeing a little more candor. In Slate, Lewis M. Cohen says that the MA vote will "change how the nation dies." From the article:
But the Massachusetts ballot question has the potential to turn death with dignity from a legislative experiment into the new national norm. The state is the home of America's leading medical publication (the New England Journal of Medicine), hospital (Massachusetts General), and four medical schools (Harvard, Boston University, University of Massachusetts, and Tufts). Passage of the law would represent a crucial milestone for the death with dignity movement, especially since 42 percent of the state is Catholic and the church hierarchy vehemently opposes assisted dying. Vermont and New Jersey are already entertaining similar legislature, and if the act passes in Massachusetts, other states that have previously had unsuccessful campaigns will certainly be emboldened to revisit this subject.
Well, MA is one of the country's most liberal state–and that often counts more than stated religious affiliation. But that point aside, I think that if MA does pass assisted suicide, other states in New England could follow.
And that would be lethal to the Hippocratic value of treating all patients as moral equals. Consider the full-throated advocacy these days for cutting medical costs. What could be cheaper than transforming intentional drug overdoses into a "medical treatment?" About $1000 is about all it would cost to get a patient dead, and that probably includes doctor's visits. But it could cost more than $100,000 to provide the kind of care required so that patients didn't want assisted suicide.
Don't think that issue hasn't crossed the technocrats' minds. Vermont, for example, has created a single payer state health care system. But they don't know how to pay for it. Some are now suggesting legalizing assisted suicide and joining it with health care rationing. Not only that, but the latter could help drive the former.
Normalizing assisted suicide could also put pressure on the dying and seriously ill or disabled to move on. If you think this sounds like a potential "duty to die," you are not crazy. That too is bubbling on the bioethics burner.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: National Review
The controversy over comments made by U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock reveals the undeniable ugliness of American politics. At the same time, the media firestorm underscores the importance of getting the pro-life position right -- and expressing it well.
Mourdock, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Indiana, was debating his opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly when the issue of abortion emerged. Both candidates claimed to affirm that life begins at conception, but Mourdock called for the end of abortion on demand. He then extended his remarks with these words:
"This is that issue that every candidate for federal, or even state, office faces, and I too stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view and I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have [for abortion] is in that case [where] the life of the mother [is threatened]. I struggled with it for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen."
Immediately, Mourdock was charged with claiming that God intended a rape to happen. A spokesperson for the Obama campaign said that President Obama "felt those comments were outrageous and demeaning to women." Democratic operatives and media voices denounced Mourdock as hateful, extremist, and worse, and even many of his fellow Republicans scattered and ran for cover. Some demanded that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney should pull an ad supportive of Mourdock.
A closer look at Mourdock's comments reveals that the candidate was not in any true sense calling rape "something that God intended to happen." Everything Mourdock said in that answer flowed from his stated presupposition that life begins at conception, and that every human life is a gift from God.
Nevertheless, the liberal media went into full apoplexy, painting Richard Mourdock as a woman-hating extremist with reprehensible views on an issue as serious as rape.
Almost none of those who quoted Mourdock in making these charges used the full quotation, much less the audio of its delivery in the debate. The full quote reveals that the candidate was affirming the full dignity of every human life, regardless of the circumstance of conception.
To their credit, some in the media saw through the controversy. Writing for The New Republic, Amy Sullivan made clear that she disagrees with Mourdock's position, but she honestly explained his words, and she expressed disappointment in his treatment by many liberal commentators.
In her words:
"Despite the assertions of many liberal writers I read and otherwise admire, I don't think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape exceptions because they hate women or want to control women. I think they're totally oblivious and insensitive and can't for a moment place themselves in the shoes of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rape. I think most don't particularly care that their policy decisions can impact what control a woman does or doesn't have over her own body. But if Mourdock believes that God creates all life and that to end a life created by God is murder, then all abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances in which a pregnancy came about."
She is exactly right, and bravely so. She continued:
"Take a look again at Mourdock's words: 'I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And ... even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.' The key word here is 'it.' I think it's pretty clear that Mourdock is referring to a life that is conceived by a rape. He is not arguing that rape is the something that God intended to happen."
Amy Sullivan also acknowledged that Mourdock's position is "a fairly common theological belief." Her candor and honesty were refreshing exceptions to most of the coverage.
Similarly, Kevin Drum, writing in the liberal journal Mother Jones, also registered his disagreement with Mourdock's argument. Nevertheless, he was bold to ask the obvious -- "can't we all acknowledge that this is just conventional Christian theology?" He added, "What I find occasionally odd is that so many conventional bits of theology like this are so controversial if someone actually mentions them in public."
Both Drum and Sullivan described Mourdock's argument as a form of theodicy, meaning a defense of God that points to good coming out of evil. They are certainly right to identify this argument as germane to the context of rape and pregnancy, but Mourdock did not actually go so far as to make the argument.
The controversy over his statements reveals the irresponsibility of so many in the media and the political arena. The characterizations and willful distortions of Mourdock's words amount to nothing less than lies.
At the same time, Mr. Mourdock is responsible for giving the media and his political enemies the very ammunition for their distortions.
The debate question did not force Mourdock to garble his argument. The cause of defending the unborn is harmed when the argument for that defense is expressed badly and recklessly, and Mourdock's answer was both reckless and catastrophically incomplete.
The issue of exceptions that might justify an abortion cannot be discussed carelessly. Furthermore, any reference to rape must start with a clear affirmation of the horrifying evil of rape and an equal affirmation of concern for any woman or girl victimized by a rapist. At this point, the defender of the unborn should point to the fact that every single human life is sacred at every point of its development and without regard to the context of that life's conception. No one would deny that this is true of a 6-year-old child conceived in the horror of a rape. Those who defend the unborn know that it was equally true when that child was in the womb.
No doubt, Mourdock meant to express this point, but his words fell far short of an adequate expression of the argument. In his political situation, that failure might be fatal. In terms of the cause of defending life, his argument makes the task more difficult.
And yet, this controversy was really not about a failure of communication. Behind it all is the great chasm that separates those who defend the sanctity of life and those who defend abortion on demand. With that in mind, how should the defenders of life think about exceptions that might justify an abortion?
One truth must be transparently clear -- a consistent defense of all human life means that there is no acceptable exception that would allow an intentional abortion. If every life is sacred, there is no exception.
The three exceptions most often proposed call for abortion to be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. These are the exceptions currently affirmed by Mitt Romney in his presidential campaign. What should we think of these?
First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare.
Next, when speaking of cases involving rape and incest, we must affirm the sinful tragedy of such acts and sympathize without reservation with the victims. We must then make the argument that the unborn child that has resulted from such a heinous act should not be added to the list of victims. That child possesses no less dignity than a child conceived in any other context.
How should we think of these questions in light of our current cultural and political context? We must contend for the full dignity and humanity of every single human life at every point of development and life from conception until natural death, and we cannot rest from this cause so long as the threat to the dignity and sanctity of any life remains.
In the meantime, we are informed by the fact that, as the Gallup organization affirmed just months ago, the vast majority of Americans are willing to support increased restrictions on abortion so long as those exceptions are allowed. We should gladly accept and eagerly support such laws and the candidates who support them, knowing that such a law would save the life of over a million unborn children in the nation each year.
Can we be satisfied with such a law? Of course not, and we cannot be disingenuous in our public statements. But we can eagerly support a law that would save the vast majority of unborn children now threatened by abortion, even as we seek to convince our fellow Americans that this is not enough.
We must argue for the dignity, humanity and right to life of every unborn child, regardless of the context of its conception, but we must argue well and make our arguments carefully. The use and deliberate abuse of Richard Mourdock's comments should underline the risk of falling short in that task.
Contact: R. Albert Mohler
Source: Baptist Press
