Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Hobby Lobby and Mardel had argued that requiring them to pay for the drugs, which come under brand names such as Plan B and ella, would violate the faith of their owners, not to mention the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion. Judge Joe Heaton, nominated by President George W. Bush, disagreed, saying the law was not unconstitutional.
Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts store chain, while Mardel is a Christian bookstore chain. Both are owned by the Green family. The companies are self-insured, and their health care plans take effect Jan. 1. They had requested a temporary injunction.
"Churches and other religious organizations or religious corporations have been accorded protection under the free exercise clause," Heaton, of the U.S. District Court in western Oklahoma, wrote. "... However, Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations. Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion ..."
The ruling Monday (Nov. 19) came three days after another federal judge reached a different conclusion in siding with Bible publisher Tyndale in its suit against what has become known as the abortion/contraceptive mandate. That judge also was nominated by Bush. Including the Tyndale case, three federal judges this year have ruled against the mandate. At least 40 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate. The Supreme Court eventually may get involved.
The Becket Fund says it will file an appeal on behalf of Hobby Lobby and Mardel.
"Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund. "The Green family needs relief now and we will seek it immediately from the federal appeals court in Denver."
With more than 500 stores in 41 states, Hobby Lobby's owners always have made their faith a central part of their business. Their stores play Christian instrumental music and are closed on Sundays. Hobby Lobby contributes to Christian organizations and runs full-page ads in newspapers during the Easter and Christmas seasons with Gospel-centered messages.
"These abortion-causing drugs go against our faith, and our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful," David Green, Hobby Lobby's founder and CEO, said in September. "... We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate."
In his ruling, Heaton said Hobby Lobby and Mardel "do not have constitutional free exercise rights as corporations." He cited a Supreme Court case and said the "plain import is that there must be more than some burden on religious exercise. The burden must be substantial."
Green said religious liberty is at stake.
"Hobby Lobby has always been a tool for the Lord's work," he said. "... For me and my family, charity equals ministry, which equals the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ... But now our faith is being challenged by the federal government."
The mandate was announced by the Department of Health and Human Services in August 2011 as part of the health care law championed by President Obama. Although the Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June of this year, the justices' ruling did not deal with the religious liberty issues surrounding the abortion/contraceptive mandate. That means the nation's highest court could yet strike down what has been for religious groups the most controversial part of the law.
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: Baptist Press
Monahan said in a Nov. 20 interview with CNA that her "immediate goal is to do the best job possible to commemorate this somber 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which is rapidly hitting us here in January; to do what we can to make the rally very youth accessible and interesting and to make the March as fruitful as possible."
The fund organizes and runs the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., which will be held Jan. 25, 2013 on the National Mall.
Monahan, who was unanimously approved by the fund's board on Nov. 16, said her ultimate goal is to work herself "out of a job."
She sees her position as more than just running "the largest pro-life event in the world, but to be making a difference in terms of impacting a culture of life every single day, not only around the anniversary of Roe."
"My long term goal … is to utilize the education piece of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund."
Monahan joined the March for Life board in June "with every intention of staying" at her job with the Family Research Council, but when the organization's founder Nellie Gray died in August, Monahan was made the interim president.
Monahan previously served as director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, and before that worked in various capacities at the Department of Health and Human Services. She holds a Master of Theological Studies from Catholic University of America.
"Jeanne is a strong pro-life advocate who will continue the strong leadership of Nellie Gray and bring us closer to a culture of life," said Patrick E. Kelly, Chairman of the Board of Directors. "The Board and I are very much looking forward to working with Jeanne in this new, full-time capacity and are looking forward to our largest March in history this January."
She said that January's event will utilize jumbotrons and will be succinct, lasting roughly an hour. A handful of legislators will speak, and they will be "leaders on both sides of the political aisle who are pro-life."
Monahan also intends to have a celebrity speaker, as well as music that will be "interesting and engaging" for young people.
"One major goal I have … is to get all of the participants to do some kind of act of lobbying on the Hill while they're here; not only to peacefully protest, but to make an appointment with their legislators and to go and talk to them about the necessity of pro-life legislation, and to do so in a positive and compelling way."
The new president also wants to focus specifically on helping young people lobby their legislators.
"We'll do everything we can to engage media in a positive way and to raise as much awareness about the fact that abortion is the human rights issue of today," she said.
Monahan noted the Fund is launching a more "savvy" social media campaign by updating their Facebook page, better utilizing Twitter and reaching out to youth with new media.
Monahan sees a great deal of hope for the pro-life movement going forward, because "young people are overwhelmingly pro-life … they have their finger on the pulse that this truly does destroy a human life."
Asked about the future of the pro-life movement, she said that "one thing I think is critical moving forward is that we show abortion is bad for women … that we use truth and technology and science, all to our advantage. All we need to do with the abortion issue is bring it into the light."
She cited advances in ultrasound technology and understanding of fetal pain as factors which have enlightened young people about the truth behind abortion.
Monahan emphasized that she plans to "do everything I can to show the fallacy" of the slogans that abortion is a "so-called right for women and good for women's health."
"Abortion is not good for women, and obviously not good for the babies who aren't allowed a right to life."
As she looks ahead to January, Monahan gets "the sense that the way providence has played out, that this is going to be a very important year for the March for Life, for people peacefully protesting."
Contact: Carl Bunderson
Source: CNA/EWTN News
A federal district court Friday (Nov. 16) issued a temporary injunction preventing the administration from requiring Tyndale House Publishers to cover contraceptives that can cause chemical abortions. The drugs often are called "emergency contraceptives" and can act after conception and implantation, and come under brand names such as Plan B and ella.
Obeying the mandate would force Tyndale to violate its religious beliefs, the publisher argued through its attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Judge Reggie B. Walton agreed.
"The contraceptive coverage mandate ... places the plaintiffs in the untenable position of choosing either to violate their religious beliefs by providing coverage of the contraceptives at issue or to subject their business to the continual risk of the imposition of enormous penalties for its noncompliance," Walton wrote. "... Government action that creates such a Hobson's choice for the plaintiffs amply shows that the contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdens the plaintiffs' religious exercise."
It is the third ruling this year against the mandate, which was implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services after President Obama signed the 2010 health care law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). The law itself does not include the mandate language, although it does give the federal government the power to decide what should and should not be covered under the law. Churches and religious conventions are exempt from the mandate, but many religious organizations are not.
Walton's ruling currently applies only to Tyndale but could have a much wider impact if Tyndale continues winning in court. Tyndale's new insurance plan year began Oct. 1 and it is self-insured -- meaning it would have been forced to pay for the controversial drugs.
There is "undoubtedly" a "public interest in ensuring that the rights secured under the First Amendment" are protected, Walton ruled. He used most of his 38-page opinion to show how the mandate violates a 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Walton was nominated by President George W. Bush.
Matt Bowman, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, applauded the judge's ruling.
"Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish," said Bowman, who took part in oral arguments before the judge. "The court has done the right thing in halting the mandate while our lawsuit moves forward. For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is startling. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is willing to disregard the Constitution's protection of religious freedom to achieve certain political purposes."
Although the Supreme Court upheld the health care law this summer, it did not address the issues in the Tyndale case. There have been 40 suits filed seeking to overturn the mandate, according to a tally by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Tyndale -- which has 260 full-time employees -- functions as a thoroughly Christian organization, the ADF suit states. For instance:
-- One of its corporate goals is to "honor God."
-- It holds a weekly chapel service for employees.
-- It opens business meetings with prayer.
-- It sends employees on mission projects to support Christian mission organizations, paid for by the company.
-- It contributes 10 percent of its profits each year to Christian organizations.
-- Its trustees must affirm a statement of faith that proclaims, for instance, "there is one God, eternally existent in three persons."
The mandate provides an exemption for churches and church-like bodies provided they are non-profit and meet all four of the following criteria: 1) "The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization"; 2) "The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization"; 3) "The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization"; and 4) The organization is a church, an integrated auxiliary of a church, a convention or association of churches, or is an exclusively religious activity of a religious order, under Internal Revenue Code 6033(a)(1) and (a)(3)(A)."
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: Baptist Press
The "Abortion Gang," a blog by "unapologetic activists for reproductive justice," is beating the drum for repeal of the Hyde Amendment.
In a Nov. 7 post, a writer for the Abortion Gang urged President Obama to act to put an end to Hyde, which has prohibited Medicaid coverage of most abortions since 1976. Obama "must take a stand this January and strike restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortion when he presents his budget to Congress," according to the post.
The Hyde Amendment not only bars Medicaid funds for abortions but acts as a model for restrictions on abortion funding in other federal programs.
For the Abortion Gang and other abortion rights advocates, reproductive rights do not fully exist unless the government pays for the abortions of those who cannot afford them.
Contact: Tom Strode, Erin Roach and Diana Chandler
Source: Baptist Press
Apparently, Planned Parenthood is no longer content exploiting just women and children–so they've moved on to the federal government. Over the past several years, it seems the country's biggest abortion provider has also been running one of the country's biggest scams: a Medicaid racket that's ripped off millions of taxpayer dollars.
Today, it appears that at least six states have been targeted by Cecile Richards's scheme, which reportedly conned the government with hundreds of thousands of bogus reimbursement claims.
One of those states–Texas–will be hearing its first arguments on the issue this week in U.S. District Court, thanks to former Planned Parenthood director-turned-whistleblower Abby Johnson. With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), she plans to expose at least 87,000 instances of fraud during her time as a clinic manager in Southeast Texas.
Based on her testimony and supporting documents, Planned Parenthood routinely submitted ineligible claims on everything from pap smears to STD and pregnancy tests. In fact, Johnson says her bosses at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast were under so much financial pressure that they would repeatedly tell staff, "We must turn every call and visit into a revenue-generating client."
A ring of at least 10 clinics were falsifying patient charts, which they would "fix" and "cover up" before the auditors and inspectors came.
"People may hold different views about abortion," Johnson says, "but everyone can agree that Planned Parenthood should play by the same rules as everyone else. It certainly isn't entitled to any public funds, especially if it is defrauding Medicaid and the American taxpayer."
In states like Iowa, the plot was so sophisticated that clinics were getting $26.32 reimbursement checks for a $2.98 package of birth control. State and local governments have poured more than a billion dollars into Richards's group–and this is how she repays them? Twenty-eight million in stolen funds in Iowa, $6 million in Texas, $180 million in California, and similar allegations in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.
And while we can't say exactly where the dollars went, evidence suggests President Obama's campaign was one of the biggest beneficiaries of Planned Parenthood's largesse. Thanks to this extra revenue from overbilling, Richards's group had the flexibility to spend a whopping $15 million to put Barack Obama back in the White House, where he can keep the money flowing to his favorite chain
Contact: Tony Perkins
Source: Ililnois Review
Martin Cullen, an intensive care physician in Sydney, writes that the increasing acceptance of euthanasia has helped increase patients' distrust of doctors.
"I never cease to marvel how deeply some families of my patients distrust the medical profession," says Martin Cullen. "Between me and them is a wall of suspicion. I know how used car salesmen must feel."
"No longer do families assume that their loved one will be cared for," he continued. "Families feel they need to be advocates for their sick relative. They aggressively question all of my suggestions for care. I really can't blame them. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legalized, non-voluntary euthanasia, aka murder, is no longer unknown."
"Nowadays when I bring bad news to families and tell them that death is imminent and that we can do no more, I expect resistance and hostility," he added. "Just a few weeks ago I was treating an elderly woman who was very sick. Her family told me that they believed that their father had been euthanased years before. They weren't going to let us doctors take their mother, too. They looked at me as if I were a murderer. It was very unsettling for me."
Source: CWN
In June of this past year, photos of a Chinese woman and her dead child flooded the Internet, accompanied by the account of how Feng Jianmei was abducted from her home and forced to undergo a late-term abortion by local family-planning officials. Mrs. Feng's story spread across international news headlines and provoked outrage by national governments. The European Parliament issued a terse statement calling the incident "unacceptable."
A recent article makes the case that any law which restricts abortion--such as waiting periods or parental consent--is the equivalent of China's brutal forced abortion policy that victimized Mrs. Feng. The article from the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion group Planned Parenthood, says this because both represent "coercion in reproductive decision making." According to their analysis, "forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy she wants or to continue a pregnancy that she does not want both violate the same human rights."
The article equates legal restrictions on abortion to enforced abortion by drawing false parallels with regard to both the nature and intent of the laws being compared. The article's author notably contrasts the continuation of a pregnancy, rather than conception, with its termination. No mention is made of any government policy which provides for the forced impregnation of women, only those which protect a pregnancy which has already been established. While this may be in part due to the fact that no country has a policy which allows for government-sanctioned rape, it also attempts to change the context of the debate.
A large portion of the article focuses on United States laws such as those requiring counseling prior to abortion and blocking taxpayer funds from subsidizing abortions. According to the author's thesis, these policies, like the Chinese family-planning regulations, force women "either to have or to not have children for the greater good of those other than themselves." While the article provides examples of national policies providing incentives or deterrents to childbearing enacted in response to fears of population explosion or implosion, no mention is made of the good of the child itself. The Guttmacher article fails to acknowledge any possible motivations for restricting abortion outside of "pronatalist" efforts by leaders to increase national birth rates.
However, government policies intended to increase childbearing typically focus on factors existing prior to the conception of a child, such as increased maternity leave, tax incentives, and housing benefits, such as those introduced in Russia in the 1980s. While abortion rates in Russia have been declining since the 1970s, the pronatalist policies instituted by the government have been incentives to childbearing, not restrictions on abortion. However, while the Guttmacher article fails to explicitly define which policies encouraging larger families it deems coercive, it provides only the most extreme instances of forced abortion and sterilization as counter-examples.
In their attempt to characterize restrictions on abortion in the United States as human rights violations comparable to forced abortion in China, the author completely ignores the argument that abortion itself is a violation of the human rights of the child, despite the fact that many Americans believe that life begins at conception.
Contact: Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
Source: C-FAM
A new report from the United Nations Population Fund declares that family planning is a global "right" for women, and calls for the removal of any social and financial obstacles to it.
"Every adult, adolescent and young person everywhere, regardless of sex, social status, income, ethnicity, religion or place of residence must be empowered to decide freely and responsibly how many children to have and when to have them," the document said.
On Nov. 14, the United Nations Population Fund released the report, titled "The State of World Population 2012." It is subtitled "By Choice, Not By Chance" and links family planning to international development.
In its analysis, the UNFPA called the July 2012 London Summit on Family Planning a "sign of progress."
The event, which the population fund hosted with the help of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, secured $2.6 billion in pledges from countries and foundations to provide family planning to 120 million women. It said $4.1 billion is needed to provide family planning to 222 million women who reportedly would use it but lack access to it.
The summit drew intense backlash, however, from critics ranging from the Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano to global pro-life advocates.
Meghan Grizzle, research and policy specialist at the World Youth Alliance, and Greg Pfundstein – executive director of the Chiaroscuro Foundation – said the figure of 222 million women in need of family planning is "misleading" and likely overstated.
"Many women have access to contraception and choose not to use it. Social scientists and public policy experts identify women as having an unmet need for contraception even when those women have not expressed a desire to use contraception," Pfundstein and Grizzle said in a July essay published in Public Discourse.
Wendy Wright, interim executive director of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, in July charged that the summit marks "a new chapter in the population control movement." She said the summit would use the goal of helping poor women to secure permanent funding for abortion-promoting and population control groups.
Wright said that resources used for family planning could be better directed to providing access to basic health care and maternal health care.
In its new report, UNFPA included some population control advocacy and depicted access to family planning as a "sound economic investment."
It attributed the growth of some Asian economies to a family planning-driven demographic shift which caused the numbers of income-generating adults to be higher than those dependent upon them for support. The report predicted a $30 billion growth in the Nigerian economy if its fertility rate falls by one child per woman in the next 20 years.
The UNFPA report summary said family planning is "almost universally recognized as an intrinsic right" that should be "available to all." It said family planning should be promoted as "a right" which enables "a whole range of other rights."
The report does, however, include a favorable mention of family planning methods the Catholic Church does not recognize as sinful.
"Fertility awareness-related methods are also quite effective if used correctly," it said, citing Guttmacher Institute statistics indicating that these methods are only slightly more likely to result in pregnancy in the first year of use than condoms and are much less likely to result in pregnancy than no family planning method.
Source: CNA/EWTN News
People with pro-abortion and pro-life views aren't necessarily rigid or consistent in their views.
In direct contrast to common assumptions, not all evangelicals and conservatives believe abortion should be outlawed in every situation, and many liberals do not want abortion available in all circumstances. Ron Sellers of Grey Matter Research conducted a survey that found evidence of this.
"Only 28 percent of all Americans believe that abortion should be legal in every situation," he indicates. "Only 18 percent believe abortion should be illegal in every situation. Thirty-eight percent said there are some cases where it should be legal; others said it should not. And then 16 percent frankly said, I honestly haven't decided how I feel on this issue. I just don't know."
So Sellers says the survey stresses that people may lean in a particular direction but are not totally one-sided. Sellers is not surprised that 30 percent of those surveyed support sex-selective abortions.
"The attitude among some of the folks who believe that abortion should be legal is that it is not a life, it is not a baby -- it is simply a mass of cells," he explains. "I mean, from a moral standpoint, [they believe] it's really no different than the mother having a growth or a tumor removed from her body."
What did surprise Sellers, "in a sense, is the lack of constancy from those on both sides of the debate."
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
