It’s amazing what is considered compassion and social justice these days.
An administration whose campaign hinged on “care for the needy” rhetoric won’t exempt a group of nuns — dedicating their lives to serving the elderly poor — from an unmerciful government mandate that forces them to provide for abortifacients and violates their religious freedom.
Today the Supreme Court will finally hear oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, the Little Sisters of the Poor and 34 other plaintiffs’ case against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
There have been countless articles written either criticizing or critiquing the Little Sisters of the Poor. But I think the sisters said it best themselves in a recent New York Times opinion piece entitled, “Obamacare’s Birth-Control ‘Exemption’ Still Tramples on Rights.” Constance Veit, Director of Vocations for the Little Sisters of the Poor, wrote:
Our goal with this case is to have the freedom to follow our conscience in what we do and offer. The women who take the vows to become Little Sisters of the Poor do so out of deep love and religious conviction. We spend our days caring for, learning from, and serving those whom many in our society would prefer to forget. All we are asking is that the government allow us to continue that work.
As an Evangelical Christian woman, I stand in solidarity with the Little Sisters of the Poor. Not just because I affirm my charitable Catholic sisters in Christ and agree with their convictions on abortifacients and chemical contraception.
More than that, I stand with the Little Sisters of the Poor because their case is about real “women’s rights.” As Veit wrote, this is about “the women who take vows” to care for others society discards as burdensome. The sisters’ plea is about women—the ultimate self-sacrificing women in America—denied the most basic right to live and work according to their conscience free of government intrusion. These women seek justice so they can avoid crippling fines and in-turn continue to do justice and show mercy.
These women of faith are fighting for their freedom. All because our heavy-handed government is more consumed with pushing contraception rather than protecting religious freedom.
God help a nation whose government is willing to sacrifice the convictions of compassionate nuns for the sake of the Pill.
Comment by Alan on March 24, 2016 at 7:43 pm
This is complete nonsense. The nuns are free to hold whatever beliefs they want. What they are not free to do is interfere with the contraceptive decisions of others. There is a long history of people trying to infringe the freedoms of others on grounds they claim are moral grounds. It’s a pretty ugly history. This is one only mildly ugly example of that. Naturally those who do this feel very morally superior, as they undermine individual freedom.
Comment by RickPlasterer on March 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm
Alan,
The Little Sisters are not imposing their beliefs on anyone. They are being imposed on. No one should be required to pay for other people’s choices that they believe immoral, or to contribute to activities they believe immoral. It”s simple common sense. The government should not judge conscience, but protect it.
Rick Plasterer
Institute on Religion and Democracy
Comment by Alan on March 30, 2016 at 11:47 am
Rick, If you are going to post as a representative of the IRD, one would hope that you would first have some clue as to what you are talking about. Apparently you do not.
First of all, nobody is asking the Little Sisters to change their activities in any way, except to fill out an exemption form. This form allows them to “opt out” of providing contraceptives to their employees. This has absolutely no monetary implications for the Little Sisters.
Second of all, putting aside your complete lack of understanding of what is actually at stake in the Little Sisters case, I doubt you really believe that people should not have to pay for things they consider immoral. For example, many people consider US military activities abroad to be immoral. Are you proposing that they be exempt from paying taxes to fund our military? There are quite a few people who consider the income tax to be altogether immoral (a kind of theft). Are you proposing that these people be exempt from the income tax?
Again, these last questions are entirely separate from the Little Sisters case, which has no monetary implications at all. They are simply an encouragement to sit down and take the time to do what you have clearly avoided doing to date: think.
Comment by RickPlasterer on March 30, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Alan,
As I indicated in my comment, no one should be required to pay for other people’s choices they believe to be evil, or contribute to activities they believe are immoral. Those are the two choices offered the Little Sisters by the Obama Administration. They can either pay for contraceptives/abortifacients in their medical plans, or begin a government process to have them provided. As I will note in a subsequent article, a lawyer litigating this at the Supreme Court has clearly shown that the comparison to military conscientious objection is wrong. It is as if the objector can go to war himself, or provide a substitute soldier. Either involves the objector in activities believed to be evil.
Nor is the “tax dollars” argument valid. When we pay taxes, it becomes the government’s money, not ours, and likely some of that will be spent on things we think wrong. It may be something to write your Congressman about, but it’s quite different from being required to pay for goods or services believed to be evil.
It’s quite obvious that the government wants to involve religious organizations in what they believe to be wrong, because the government believes their beliefs are wrong.
Rick
Comment by Alan on March 30, 2016 at 4:34 pm
Rick,
Nice attempt to wiggle, but you remained pinned, and such “arguments” just embarrass yourself. I’m not sure which to focus on: your abuse of the phrase “begin a government process” (which has already begun), or your silly attempt to sidestep the “pay your taxes” problem by pretending that the decision to pay taxes need not take into account what that tax money will be used for. I guess I will just point out *yet again* that the nuns are *not* being required to make any monetary outlay related to contraception. But since you choose to so carelessly through around the word “evil”, I guess I am also forced to note that chemicals (like guns) cannot be “evil”, although you may well object to the uses to which they are put. In contrast, behavior (such as trying to interfere with the contraceptive choices of women) can indeed be evil, even when those who engage in it assert otherwise.
Comment by American Patriot on March 27, 2016 at 5:59 pm
Another reborn Jesus freak who now fronts a propaganda site.
Not impressed.
Comment by The_Physetor on April 3, 2016 at 9:35 am
A culture of life versus a culture of death – the ethics is so clear-cut.