Notre Dame files lawsuit in U.S. District Court regarding recent mandate from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

[RonD1120 62]

May 21, 2012

A Message from Father John Jenkins, C.S.C.,
President, University of Notre Dame

Today the University of Notre Dame filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana regarding a recent mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching. The decision to file this lawsuit came after much deliberation, discussion and efforts to find a solution acceptable to the various parties.
Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about: it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services. Many of our faculty, staff and students -- both Catholic and non-Catholic -- have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents. We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.

This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives. For if we concede that the Government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions. For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.

The details of the process that led to the mandate are publicly known. In an Interim Final Ruling issued August 3, 2011, the federal government required employers to provide the objectionable services. A narrow exemption was given to religious institutions that serve and employ primarily members of their own faith, but, departing from a long tradition in federal law, organizations like Notre Dame—schools, universities, hospitals and charitable organizations that serve and employ people of all faiths and none—were granted no exemption, but instead were made subject to the law to the same extent as any secular organization. On September 28, I submitted a formal comment encouraging the Administration to follow precedent and adopt a broader exemption.

Despite some positive indications, the Administration announced on January 20, 2012, that its interim rule would be adopted as final without change. After an outcry from across the political spectrum, President Obama announced on February 10 that his Administration would attempt to accommodate the concerns of religious organizations. We were encouraged by this announcement and have engaged in conversations with Administration officials to find an acceptable resolution. Although I do not question the good intentions and sincerity of all involved in these discussions, progress has not been encouraging and an announcement seeking comments on how to structure any accommodation (HHS Advanced Notification of Proposed Rule Making on preventative services policy, March 16, 2012) provides little in the way of a specific, substantive proposal or a definite timeline for resolution. Moreover, the process laid out in this announcement will last months, making it impossible for us to plan for and implement any changes to our health plans by the government-mandated deadlines. We will continue in earnest our discussions with Administration officials in an effort to find a resolution, but, after much deliberation, we have concluded that we have no option but to appeal to the courts regarding the fundamental issue of religious freedom.

It is for these reasons that we have filed this lawsuit neither lightly nor gladly, but with sober determination.

The lawsuit is available online at http://opac.nd.edu/public-information/hhs-complaint

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[muff528 3]

Wow! I had no idea that the weather in South Bend was that nice!

[sfzombie 3]

that is similar to what i've been saying for years now. as long as you don't interfere with anyone else, it should be nobody's business you do. drugs, prostitution, gambling, driving without a seatbelt, drinking, etc. the key here is "as long as you don't interfere with anyone else". if you drink and drive, bam, interfering with the general public. do drugs and steal to support your habit, bam, interfering with others. this should apply to anyone over the age of 18 with no exceptions.
although not guaranteed in the constitution, the pursuit of happiness was important enough to the founders that it was a key to the declaration of independance. whenever the supreme court rules on the constitutionality of a law, these types of documents should be used to determine the intents of the constitution.
and it is the "pusuit" of happiness, not the guarantee. most people forget about that. i am sick and tired of people forcing things on me "for my own good". i am a big boy and have been taking care of myself for over 20 years now. enough already!!

http://kitswv.com

[Andy9o8 2]

Well... as a matter of policy (legalities aside), there's already some precedent for Notre Dame's position. Specifically, I'm thinking about the exception that's carved out of the federal employment discrimination laws that allows religious organizations (including private parochial schools and church-affiliated colleges) to restrict employment based on the employees' faith, etc. Now that's a specific exception in the statute, so obviously a majority in Congress at the time either favored it or was willing to accept it.

Legally, in this case, Notre Dame's position is more subtle because their argument is principally one of Constitutional law. I'll bet the Dems are kicking themselves now for not anticipating and nullifying this problem before the final version of the law was passed (and that failing was amateurish, IMO); but it is what it is, and now they have to deal with it as best they can. I do think ND's case has a chance, but there are creditable arguments on both sides.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Well... as a matter of policy (legalities aside), there's already some precedent for Notre Dame's position. Specifically, I'm thinking about the exception that's carved out of the federal employment discrimination laws that allows religious organizations (including private parochial schools and church-affiliated colleges) to restrict employment based on the employees' faith, etc. Now that's a specific exception in the statute, so obviously a majority in Congress at the time either favored it or was willing to accept it.

Legally, in this case, Notre Dame's position is more subtle because their argument is principally one of Constitutional law. I'll bet the Dems are kicking themselves now for not anticipating and nullifying this problem before the final version of the law was passed (and that failing was amateurish, IMO); but it is what it is, and now they have to deal with it as best they can. I do think ND's case has a chance, but there are creditable arguments on both sides.

Thank you. Your opinion now provides me with some direction to my thinking.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Well... as a matter of policy (legalities aside), there's already some precedent for Notre Dame's position. Specifically, I'm thinking about the exception that's carved out of the federal employment discrimination laws that allows religious organizations (including private parochial schools and church-affiliated colleges) to restrict employment based on the employees' faith, etc. Now that's a specific exception in the statute, so obviously a majority in Congress at the time either favored it or was willing to accept it.

Legally, in this case, Notre Dame's position is more subtle because their argument is principally one of Constitutional law. I'll bet the Dems are kicking themselves now for not anticipating and nullifying this problem before the final version of the law was passed (and that failing was amateurish, IMO); but it is what it is, and now they have to deal with it as best they can. I do think ND's case has a chance, but there are creditable arguments on both sides.

I think what you just said is that, given such institutions are legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, it follows that they should also be able to discriminate on the basis of gender, so long as their beliefs are cited as the premise? Seems like a decent argument.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)