The Little Sisters of the Poor, their sort of reprieve, and the future of the HHS Mandate

on January 7, 2014

Back in November, IRD’s Chelsen Vicari wrote a piece for Juicy Ecumenism titled “The Little Sisters of the Poor, the Bogeyman & His Evangelical Henchmen.” The Little Sisters of the Poor is just one of many nonprofit groups President Obama (the Bogeyman) and his administration may force to close down. This is because such a group will not comply with the HHS Mandate requiring them to provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacients, and it cannot pay such steep fines. The Little Sisters of the Poor is not only a charity run by Catholic nuns who regard it as sinful and immoral to go along with such requirements, but it is one which relies entirely on donors and volunteers.

So where does the Obama administration get off on requiring such a group to go against deeply held beliefs or force them to close their doors?

In the early hours of January 1, it was reported that Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, granted a temporary hold for the Catholic group, lasting until Friday morning. This was breaking news which provided a sense of hope for the New Year. It is worth pointing out that the Justice who granted temporary relief from the Obama administration was actually appointed to the Court by Obama. Thus, this may be a sign for the future of the HHS Mandate for cases which the Court has agreed to hear and may still hear. The government has responded, and the Obama administration once again lives up to the name of “Bogeyman.”

As has been the case with the Obama administration in the past trying to offer “compromises” and “accommodations,” the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) response is not really any kind of a reprieve. CitizenLink reported on the DOJ’s response:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in legal papers filed today that a Roman Catholic group of nuns won’t have to offer contraception and possible abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plans — but only if they sign a government form that delegates the action to a third party. Refusing to do so could result in steep fines.

So, it would seem that the DOJ, and pretty much the entire Obama administration, does not truly understand the point of the lawsuit and the motivation of The Little Sisters of the Poor. Nor do they understand the myriad of  other religious nonprofits who are bringing such a suit forth. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the Obama administration is so blinded by the idea of free contraception, sterilization and abortifacients, that it has a very misunderstood and warped sense of religious liberty.

Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — a group which has represented some of the nonprofits in their lawsuits against the HHS Mandate —calls the government form a “permission slip,” which “merely authorizes the mandate… to a third party.”

It is not just that the Catholic charity groups do not feel like complying for any old reason. No, it is because The Little Sisters of the Poor see contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients as sinful and immoral and thus cannot be in good faith and provide them, regardless as to if it is to come from a third party.

CitizenLink concludes with a rather telling quote from Rienzi:

“Our federal government is massive and powerful,” Rienzi explained.  “It can obviously find ways to distribute contraceptives and abortion pills without forcing nuns to be involved.

This piece has already suggested that the Obama administration has been blindsided by an obsession with contraception and abortion. President Obama is the most pro-abortion president in our nation’s history, and the first sitting president to speak for abortion and contraception giant Planned Parenthood. We can say that any and all presidents enjoy power. However, Obama is taking his amount of power to a dangerous level as he seeks to violate religious liberty. And, as Rienzi points out, considering that the federal government can certainly find the means to distribute birth control and abortion pills without forcibly involving companies and organizations, Obama may very likely care about the sense of power more than he does about the women the administration believes it is helping by providing such “preventative services.”

The Supreme Court is already set to hear cases involving the HHS Mandate. These cases will focus on for-profit businesses run by owners who are morally and/or religiously opposed to the mandate, or at least certain parts of it. Many may have actually misunderstood the objections of Hobby Lobby, as the Christian-run business already provides contraception to its employees, but sees issue with providing abortifacients.

Moreover, Obama appointee Justice Sotomayor’s actions are admirable. However,  we must not get ahead of ourselves with a false sense of optimism. Both Sotomayor granting the hold and the track record of other cases brought against the government may be significant for the future. As Rienzi also pointed out:

“The government is asking the Supreme Court to look the other way while it coerces the Little Sisters,” Rienzi said.  “If the administration believed its contraceptive mandate was valid, it would join the Little Sisters’ request for Supreme Court review because the government has lost almost all of the cases in the lower courts.  Instead, its brief today is devoted to trying to keep the Court out of the issue, which would leave hundreds of religious organizations subject to massive fines for following their religion.”

Perhaps the Obama administration is running scared because it knows that the days of the HHS Mandate may be numbered. We can then hope for a return to complete religious liberty.

  1. Comment by Questionman on January 7, 2014 at 8:26 pm

    Since when is signing a form denying people “Religious Liberty” and a “war on Women” or “Christianity? Oh yeah.. You prefer to confuse the issue.. This is not about forcing “Little Sister of the Poor” to offer birth control as your article is claiming, it is about forcing “Little Sister of the Poor” to sign a form to allow their employees to get birth control elsewhere. In other words, the Little Sister of the Poor and people like you want to DENY birth control to people and force your religious beliefs on everyone else.

    The Nuns are exempted by 2 different methods — their affiliation and their insurance plan, which is administered via a church related insurance plan. Nobody is forcing the Nuns to get this care. What the government IS doing is asking them to file a legal document (as required by law) stating that they’re exempt based on these reasons, to which they refuse, claiming it violates their rights. This is a trumped up media campaign by the Catholic church to raise a stink about Obamacare….and it’s a total non-issue.

    Seriously, You scumbags will stoop to ANY low to demean Obama!

    P.S. 1. George W. Bush: He created a system of true entitlement. The idea that you can wage two wars, implement retarded unworkable policies such as No Child Left Behind, justify one of the two wars with false information, AND still have low taxes. Bush brought us into a deficit and while Obama can be faulted for many things, he cannot be faulted for the deficit any more than Bush, in fact, less than Bush. Bush put us in a $1.3 trillion deficit.

    Plenty of American presidents have infringed of civil rights.
    Obama has no infringed on the constitution.
    Bush is responsible for the deaths of many Americans.
    Previous administrations spied – ergo Obama is not worse than those presidents for spying. I’m not saying spying is justifiable – I’m saying that spying doesn’t make Obama any worse than average.
    I don’t see what Obama has to do with the IRS scandal.

  2. Comment by Kay Glines on January 8, 2014 at 9:10 pm

    Calling people who disagree with you “scumbags” is probably not the ideal way to gain a hearing for your ideas, which are frankly very silly. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, this president has, quite obviously, made a powerful effort to show Christian organizations that they better cave in to the government. The Founders, even the unorthodox ones like Thomas Jefferson, could never have imagined an American President so hostile to religion – or a Congress or public so spineless that they let him do the things this one has done.

  3. Comment by Rebecca Downs on January 8, 2014 at 6:53 pm

    I beg your pardon, but I think you too misunderstand where religious liberty fits into the HHS Mandate. You yourself called it a non-issue. It is not a non-issue when those who are religiously and/or morally opposed to providing contraception, nevermind sterilization and abortifacients, are forced to do so in ANY capacity. These services are neither illegal nor impossible for one to acquire on their own. It is people like you who confuse the issue when you try to claim that these groups and organizations wishing to be exempt are trying to deny birth control to others. It is almost ludicrous.

    And I don’t comment much on George W. Bush. That being said, Obama is almost worse. Bush was not so surprising with his actions, but Obama claimed he would be better than Bush. In reality, he’s been worse. And he’s lied about it. And where are those people who made a stink under the actions of Bush? Nowhere to be found when Obama does the same thing…

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.