Leftist Moneybags George Soros Wants Bishops to Stop Preaching Sanctity of Human Life--Hurts Obama

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, used to work with Vice President Joe Biden.

Life Site News brings us this report, which highlights the issues at stake in today's election: Left wing moneybags George Soros, the deep pockets behind such left wing anti-American organizations as ACORN and Move On, is backing a campaign to use the IRS to silence Catholic bishops on life issues. Why? Because Catholic teachings on abortion, sterilization, and euthanasia puts radicals like Barak  Obama at a disadvantage when they are offered from the pulpit.

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 5, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A liberal pressure group has accused the U.S. Catholic bishops of breaking tax law by faithfully proclaiming the non-negotiable issues of Church teaching, including the right to life.

These teachings, the organization argues, disadvantage President Barack Obama.

On Friday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked for “an immediate Internal Revenue Service investigation into the activities of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops for using their position as leaders of the Catholic Church to persuade parishioners to vote against Barack Obama in Tuesday’s election.”

The USCCB “may be engaged in prohibited electioneering,” which would require the IRS to revoke its 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt status, according to CREW. The complaint cites letters written by Bishops including Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, David Ricken of Green Bay, Edward Burns of Juneau, and Paul S. Loverde of Arlington. None of the bishops endorse a candidate. However, each reminded Catholics of the importance of preserving religious freedom against the HHS mandate, protecting innocent life, and defending the institution of marriage.

Often portrayed as a “non-partisan watchdog,” CREW’s complaints fall heavily upon conservative and Republican targets.

Executive Director Melanie Sloan served as Nominations Counsel for then-Senator Joe Biden’s Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993.

CREW is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute, as well as the Democracy Alliance, the Tides Foundation, and the  Service Employees International Union (SEIU).


The left-leaning group has regularly challenged the tax-exempt status of groups whose views it does not favor.

Its intent is to “harass and try to intimidate the Catholic Church,” Deal Hudson, president of Pennsylvania Catholics Network, told LifeSiteNews.com.

Frivolous complaints and lawsuits have “the double effect of getting good people to be timid and secondly to provide arguments for the pro-abortion Catholics to try to argue that to defend Church teaching is partisan,” Hudson said.

“There are good people who simply will hold back, because they simply can’t afford that kind of legal defense.” he said.“Bill Donohue’s Catholic League had to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending itself after 2008. Archbishop Chaput, when he was at Denver, had to spend nearly $50,000 defending himself after 2008.”

Although the Catholic bishops’ stuck to the issues, a few priests – and many Protestant clergy – have openly defied the 1954 tax ordinance and endorsed a political candidate from the pulpit.

Nearly 1,600 pastors took part in last month’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday, arranged by the Alliance Defending Freedom. The IRS has not yet investigated any participating church.

Hudson said that makes CREW’s complaint more transparent. “If this were Great Britain and these groups had to pay when they lost, there wouldn’t be a single lawsuit, because they know they will lose,” Hudson concluded. “They know it’s bogus.”

Leftist Moneybags George Soros Wants Bishops to Stop Preaching Sanctity of Human Life--Hurts Obama

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, used to work with Vice President Joe Biden.

Life Site News brings us this report, which highlights the issues at stake in today's election: Left wing moneybags George Soros, the deep pockets behind such left wing anti-American organizations as ACORN and Move On, is backing a campaign to use the IRS to silence Catholic bishops on life issues. Why? Because Catholic teachings on abortion, sterilization, and euthanasia puts radicals like Barak  Obama at a disadvantage when they are offered from the pulpit.

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 5, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A liberal pressure group has accused the U.S. Catholic bishops of breaking tax law by faithfully proclaiming the non-negotiable issues of Church teaching, including the right to life.

These teachings, the organization argues, disadvantage President Barack Obama.

On Friday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked for “an immediate Internal Revenue Service investigation into the activities of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops for using their position as leaders of the Catholic Church to persuade parishioners to vote against Barack Obama in Tuesday’s election.”

The USCCB “may be engaged in prohibited electioneering,” which would require the IRS to revoke its 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt status, according to CREW. The complaint cites letters written by Bishops including Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, David Ricken of Green Bay, Edward Burns of Juneau, and Paul S. Loverde of Arlington. None of the bishops endorse a candidate. However, each reminded Catholics of the importance of preserving religious freedom against the HHS mandate, protecting innocent life, and defending the institution of marriage.

Often portrayed as a “non-partisan watchdog,” CREW’s complaints fall heavily upon conservative and Republican targets.

Executive Director Melanie Sloan served as Nominations Counsel for then-Senator Joe Biden’s Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993.

CREW is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute, as well as the Democracy Alliance, the Tides Foundation, and the  Service Employees International Union (SEIU).


The left-leaning group has regularly challenged the tax-exempt status of groups whose views it does not favor.

Its intent is to “harass and try to intimidate the Catholic Church,” Deal Hudson, president of Pennsylvania Catholics Network, told LifeSiteNews.com.

Frivolous complaints and lawsuits have “the double effect of getting good people to be timid and secondly to provide arguments for the pro-abortion Catholics to try to argue that to defend Church teaching is partisan,” Hudson said.

“There are good people who simply will hold back, because they simply can’t afford that kind of legal defense.” he said.“Bill Donohue’s Catholic League had to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending itself after 2008. Archbishop Chaput, when he was at Denver, had to spend nearly $50,000 defending himself after 2008.”

Although the Catholic bishops’ stuck to the issues, a few priests – and many Protestant clergy – have openly defied the 1954 tax ordinance and endorsed a political candidate from the pulpit.

Nearly 1,600 pastors took part in last month’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday, arranged by the Alliance Defending Freedom. The IRS has not yet investigated any participating church.

Hudson said that makes CREW’s complaint more transparent. “If this were Great Britain and these groups had to pay when they lost, there wouldn’t be a single lawsuit, because they know they will lose,” Hudson concluded. “They know it’s bogus.”

Rolling Back Roe vs. Wade: A Look at the State-by-State Strategy

 One of the many videos available on YouTube of Charmaine's Yoest public statements as chairman of Americans United for life.

Under the leadership of its chairman, Charmaine Yoest, the Americans United for Life (AUL)  organization, has pursued a detailed state-by-state battle plan in the states to roll back the Supreme Court's 1973  Roe vs. Wade decision.  AUL has been responsible for one-third of the more than 130 bills that have constrained or regulated abortion at the state level since Yoest came on board in 2008.

Emily Brazelton of the New York Times offers a feature-length article on the work of the AUL that characterizes Yoest as a "cheerful warrior." It's good informational reading for the pro-life movement, despite the well-known bias of the Times in favor of killing unborn babies in their mothers' womb. Read Brazelton's article here.

Rolling Back Roe vs. Wade: A Look at the State-by-State Strategy

 One of the many videos available on YouTube of Charmaine's Yoest public statements as chairman of Americans United for life.

Under the leadership of its chairman, Charmaine Yoest, the Americans United for Life (AUL)  organization, has pursued a detailed state-by-state battle plan in the states to roll back the Supreme Court's 1973  Roe vs. Wade decision.  AUL has been responsible for one-third of the more than 130 bills that have constrained or regulated abortion at the state level since Yoest came on board in 2008.

Emily Brazelton of the New York Times offers a feature-length article on the work of the AUL that characterizes Yoest as a "cheerful warrior." It's good informational reading for the pro-life movement, despite the well-known bias of the Times in favor of killing unborn babies in their mothers' womb. Read Brazelton's article here.

State of Texas Will Intervene to Defend Rights of Cheerleaders to Display Religious Banners

Cheerleaders in Kountze, east Texas, with their banners.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas  has announced that the state government will intervene to preserve the religious liberty of cheerleaders who display religious banners during school football games.

The cheerleaders and their parents filed a lawsuit against the school district in Kountze, east Texas, after it banned religious messages on the banners.

Texas is seeking to intervene in a lawsuit on behalf of a high school cheerleading team fighting to continue featuring religious messages on banners at football games, Greg Abbott, the state’s attorney general, said Oct. 24.Mr. Abbott and Rick Perry, the Texas governor, said at a press conference that they will work to ensure the cheerleaders’ freedom of expression.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot sought to intervene in the case in support of the cheerleaders’ rights, stating, “We will not allow atheist groups from outside of the state of Texas to come into the state, to use menacing and misleading intimidation tactics, to try to bully schools to bow down at the altar of secular beliefs.” Texas Governor Rick Perry stated, “Anyone who is expressing their faith should be celebrated, from my perspective, in this day and age of instant gratification, this me-first culture that we see all too often.

They sat in front of photos of football players taking the field by tearing through a banner held by cheerleaders that said “If God is for us, who can be against us?”

A petition filed with Texas District Court of Hardin County by Mr. Abbott said the state was seeking to intervene in order to defend the constitutionality of Texas statutes.
“The State also has an interest in defending laws that were specifically enacted to preserve religious liberty, because a challenge to those laws could potentially erode the religious liberties of all Texans,” it said.

The school district banned the religious messages after a Wisconsin group that seeks to enforce the separation of church and state wrote to the superintendent that the banners were an endorsement of religion by a public entity.
“We will not allow atheist groups from outside of the state of Texas to come into the state to use menacing and misleading intimidation tactics to try to bully schools to bow down at the altar of secular beliefs,” Mr. Abbott said.
The cheerleaders produce the banners on their own time with private supplies. Last month, the cheerleaders won a temporary order allowing the use of religious messages on banners. There will be a hearing Thursday.

State of Texas Will Intervene to Defend Rights of Cheerleaders to Display Religious Banners

Cheerleaders in Kountze, east Texas, with their banners.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas  has announced that the state government will intervene to preserve the religious liberty of cheerleaders who display religious banners during school football games.

The cheerleaders and their parents filed a lawsuit against the school district in Kountze, east Texas, after it banned religious messages on the banners.

Texas is seeking to intervene in a lawsuit on behalf of a high school cheerleading team fighting to continue featuring religious messages on banners at football games, Greg Abbott, the state’s attorney general, said Oct. 24.Mr. Abbott and Rick Perry, the Texas governor, said at a press conference that they will work to ensure the cheerleaders’ freedom of expression.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot sought to intervene in the case in support of the cheerleaders’ rights, stating, “We will not allow atheist groups from outside of the state of Texas to come into the state, to use menacing and misleading intimidation tactics, to try to bully schools to bow down at the altar of secular beliefs.” Texas Governor Rick Perry stated, “Anyone who is expressing their faith should be celebrated, from my perspective, in this day and age of instant gratification, this me-first culture that we see all too often.

They sat in front of photos of football players taking the field by tearing through a banner held by cheerleaders that said “If God is for us, who can be against us?”

A petition filed with Texas District Court of Hardin County by Mr. Abbott said the state was seeking to intervene in order to defend the constitutionality of Texas statutes.
“The State also has an interest in defending laws that were specifically enacted to preserve religious liberty, because a challenge to those laws could potentially erode the religious liberties of all Texans,” it said.

The school district banned the religious messages after a Wisconsin group that seeks to enforce the separation of church and state wrote to the superintendent that the banners were an endorsement of religion by a public entity.
“We will not allow atheist groups from outside of the state of Texas to come into the state to use menacing and misleading intimidation tactics to try to bully schools to bow down at the altar of secular beliefs,” Mr. Abbott said.
The cheerleaders produce the banners on their own time with private supplies. Last month, the cheerleaders won a temporary order allowing the use of religious messages on banners. There will be a hearing Thursday.

Judge: HHS Mandate No Burden on Religious Freedom, Decision Narrows Definition of Religious Employer

Will court action suffice to turn back  the Obama administration's assault against religious freedom in America? Matthew Archbold filed this report on the recent defeat for religious liberty with the Cardinal Newman Society on-line newsletter October 1:


A federal district court in Missouri dismissed in its entirety a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services’ HHS contraceptive mandate brought by a Catholic business owner, saying the mandate does not constitute a substantial burden on religious freedom.

U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, ruled against Frank O’Brien and O’Brien Industries and in favor of the HHS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
O’Brien is a Catholic who, according to court documents, “tries to manage and operate OIH in a manner consistent with his religion” and sought relief from the court, claiming that regulations promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violate his constitutional First Amendment rights. The federal government, on the other hand, requested that the judge dismiss the lawsuit.

The judge stated in her decision for the federal government that O’Brien Holdings didn’t qualify for any of the exemptions previously laid out by the Administration or the temporary “safe harbor” clause as it doesn’t quality as a “religious employer.” It will therefore be mandated to select a new employee health plan before January 1, 2013.

Court papers state that O’Brien Holdings faces a choice between “complying with [the ACA’s] requirements in violation of their religious beliefs, or paying ruinous fines that would have a crippling impact on their ability to survive economically.”

However, Judge Jackson wrote that the mandate does not constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise:

… the challenged regulations do not demand that plaintiffs alter their behavior in a manner that will directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. Frank O’Brien is not prevented from keeping the Sabbath, from providing a religious upbringing for his children, or from participating in a religious ritual such as communion. Instead, plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives. The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by OIH’s plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. This Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise.

Robert Vischer of the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minnesota wrote about this decision at the Mirror of Justice blog, saying that, “if this court is correct in its analysis, then HHS could rewrite the regulations, remove any exemption for religious employers and add abortion to the list of covered services.  The Catholic Church could be forced to pay for its employees’ abortions without creating a substantial burden on religious exercise.”

The American Civil Liberties Union submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Judge: HHS Mandate No Burden on Religious Freedom, Decision Narrows Definition of Religious Employer

Will court action suffice to turn back  the Obama administration's assault against religious freedom in America? Matthew Archbold filed this report on the recent defeat for religious liberty with the Cardinal Newman Society on-line newsletter October 1:


A federal district court in Missouri dismissed in its entirety a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services’ HHS contraceptive mandate brought by a Catholic business owner, saying the mandate does not constitute a substantial burden on religious freedom.

U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, ruled against Frank O’Brien and O’Brien Industries and in favor of the HHS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
O’Brien is a Catholic who, according to court documents, “tries to manage and operate OIH in a manner consistent with his religion” and sought relief from the court, claiming that regulations promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violate his constitutional First Amendment rights. The federal government, on the other hand, requested that the judge dismiss the lawsuit.

The judge stated in her decision for the federal government that O’Brien Holdings didn’t qualify for any of the exemptions previously laid out by the Administration or the temporary “safe harbor” clause as it doesn’t quality as a “religious employer.” It will therefore be mandated to select a new employee health plan before January 1, 2013.

Court papers state that O’Brien Holdings faces a choice between “complying with [the ACA’s] requirements in violation of their religious beliefs, or paying ruinous fines that would have a crippling impact on their ability to survive economically.”

However, Judge Jackson wrote that the mandate does not constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise:

… the challenged regulations do not demand that plaintiffs alter their behavior in a manner that will directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. Frank O’Brien is not prevented from keeping the Sabbath, from providing a religious upbringing for his children, or from participating in a religious ritual such as communion. Instead, plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives. The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by OIH’s plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. This Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise.

Robert Vischer of the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minnesota wrote about this decision at the Mirror of Justice blog, saying that, “if this court is correct in its analysis, then HHS could rewrite the regulations, remove any exemption for religious employers and add abortion to the list of covered services.  The Catholic Church could be forced to pay for its employees’ abortions without creating a substantial burden on religious exercise.”

The American Civil Liberties Union submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Hobby Lobby Becomes 88th Plaintiff to File Suit Against ObamaCare

The 500 store crafts chain Hobby Lobby has filed suit against the ObamaCare abortion mandate.

 
Hobby Lobby, the national crafts store chain, announced Sept.12 that it has filed suit in Oklahoma Federal District Court challenging the Obama administration's abortion and sterilization mandate. Hobby Lobby became the 88th entity to sue for relief against the provisions of the mandate, and the first non-Catholic-owned for-profit business to do so.

“We have always operated our company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles, including integrity and service to others,” said Hobby Lobby founder and CEO David Green.

At a Sept. 12 press call announcing the lawsuit, Green explained that faith has been an “integral” part of the business from its humble beginning as a miniature picture frame company in 1972.

“Hobby Lobby has always been a tool for the Lord’s work,” he said. The company stands to be fined $1.3 million a day if it does not cooperate with the ObamaCare mandate.

Green said that he has “found a way to minister through Hobby Lobby.” He attributes his success with the company – which now has more than 500 stores and 22,500 employees nationwide – to God’s grace and said that he seeks to honor the Lord in everything he does.

Part of this faith means caring for the company’s employees, Green explained. He noted that the company is closed on Sundays – sacrificing millions of dollars in profits – in order to allow employees to spend time with their families.

In addition, he said, the company’s minimum wage for full-time employees is 80 percent above the national minimum wage.

“We also believe in sharing our faith,” Green added, pointing to the time and money that the company contributes to fund ministries throughout the world, as well as the full-page ads that it purchases at Christmas and Easter in every major city where it is present.

“For me and my family, charity equals ministry, which equals the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said.

Green explained that his freedom to operate his business in accordance with his beliefs is now being threatened to by the federal contraception mandate, announced on Jan. 20, which requires employers to offer coverage of free contraception, sterilization and early abortion-inducing drugs.

While he does not object to preventive birth control, which is already covered by the health care plan he offers, Green gravely objects to offering the “morning after” and “week after” pills, which induce early abortions by causing the death of an already existing human embryo.

“We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate,” he said.

Hobby Lobby Becomes 88th Plaintiff to File Suit Against ObamaCare

The 500 store crafts chain Hobby Lobby has filed suit against the ObamaCare abortion mandate.

 
Hobby Lobby, the national crafts store chain, announced Sept.12 that it has filed suit in Oklahoma Federal District Court challenging the Obama administration's abortion and sterilization mandate. Hobby Lobby became the 88th entity to sue for relief against the provisions of the mandate, and the first non-Catholic-owned for-profit business to do so.

“We have always operated our company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles, including integrity and service to others,” said Hobby Lobby founder and CEO David Green.

At a Sept. 12 press call announcing the lawsuit, Green explained that faith has been an “integral” part of the business from its humble beginning as a miniature picture frame company in 1972.

“Hobby Lobby has always been a tool for the Lord’s work,” he said. The company stands to be fined $1.3 million a day if it does not cooperate with the ObamaCare mandate.

Green said that he has “found a way to minister through Hobby Lobby.” He attributes his success with the company – which now has more than 500 stores and 22,500 employees nationwide – to God’s grace and said that he seeks to honor the Lord in everything he does.

Part of this faith means caring for the company’s employees, Green explained. He noted that the company is closed on Sundays – sacrificing millions of dollars in profits – in order to allow employees to spend time with their families.

In addition, he said, the company’s minimum wage for full-time employees is 80 percent above the national minimum wage.

“We also believe in sharing our faith,” Green added, pointing to the time and money that the company contributes to fund ministries throughout the world, as well as the full-page ads that it purchases at Christmas and Easter in every major city where it is present.

“For me and my family, charity equals ministry, which equals the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said.

Green explained that his freedom to operate his business in accordance with his beliefs is now being threatened to by the federal contraception mandate, announced on Jan. 20, which requires employers to offer coverage of free contraception, sterilization and early abortion-inducing drugs.

While he does not object to preventive birth control, which is already covered by the health care plan he offers, Green gravely objects to offering the “morning after” and “week after” pills, which induce early abortions by causing the death of an already existing human embryo.

“We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate,” he said.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday: October 7, 2012

Here is an initiative to bring immediately to your priest or pastor: Pulpit Freedom Sunday, October 7, 2012.

A group of pastors and preachers across the United States is preparing to speak up and promote the rights of our nation's churchmen to speak on "biblical truths" from the pulpit. In 2011, hundreds of pastors participated; thousands are expected to participate this year.
 
Pulpit Freedom Sunday is a head-on constitutional challenge to the Johnson Amendment of 1954, which is blatantly unconstitutional.  This unjust law, which never should have been applied to churches and pastors, has had a devastating effect on their constitutionally protected rights.  Pulpit Freedom Sunday is a strategic initiative to remove this unjust law and restore a pastor’s right to speak freely from the pulpit..

The Pulpit Freedom Sunday organization has enlisted the support of 2,100 attorneys who will defend the rights, free of charge, of any pastor threatened by the IRS for speaking on issues of biblical truth.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday: October 7, 2012

Here is an initiative to bring immediately to your priest or pastor: Pulpit Freedom Sunday, October 7, 2012.

A group of pastors and preachers across the United States is preparing to speak up and promote the rights of our nation's churchmen to speak on "biblical truths" from the pulpit. In 2011, hundreds of pastors participated; thousands are expected to participate this year.
 
Pulpit Freedom Sunday is a head-on constitutional challenge to the Johnson Amendment of 1954, which is blatantly unconstitutional.  This unjust law, which never should have been applied to churches and pastors, has had a devastating effect on their constitutionally protected rights.  Pulpit Freedom Sunday is a strategic initiative to remove this unjust law and restore a pastor’s right to speak freely from the pulpit..

The Pulpit Freedom Sunday organization has enlisted the support of 2,100 attorneys who will defend the rights, free of charge, of any pastor threatened by the IRS for speaking on issues of biblical truth.

Supreme Court Asked to Review Decision Striking Oklahoma Personhood Referendum

Personhood Oklahoma organization is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an  Oklahoma state court ruling that struck a personhood referendum from the state's ballot.

The Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) is urging the United States Supreme Court to review a decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking a ballot initiative that would amend the Oklahoma Constitution to define "person" as "any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death." In a friend of the court brief filed last week, the LLDF told the Court that the Oklahoma court ruling conflicted with prior Supreme Court precedent and should be reversed.

Earlier this year, Personhood Oklahoma began the process of collecting signatures to place Initiative Petition 395 on the ballot. Pro-abortion individuals, backed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, filed a protest with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, claiming that IP 395 was unconstitutional and should not be permitted to be placed on the ballot.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, holding that, on its face, IP 395 conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, affirming the right of women to obtain abortions without "undue burden" from state laws. The court preemptively found the law unconstitutional and ordered that the petition be stricken.

Last month, Personhood Oklahoma filed a petition seeking review in the United States Supreme Court, and LLDF is supporting that petition with its own brief, arguing that the Oklahoma court "acted precipitously to deprive the petitioners and the people of the state of Oklahoma of their right to engage in political expression on a matter of great public concern."

"If the United States Supreme Court does not affirm the right of the people to engage in the initiative process, the people's power will diminish, and we'll be stuck with activist judges," said Dana Cody, Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. "This isn't just an Oklahoma issue; it is a threat to political freedom in any state."

Supreme Court Asked to Review Decision Striking Oklahoma Personhood Referendum

Personhood Oklahoma organization is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an  Oklahoma state court ruling that struck a personhood referendum from the state's ballot.

The Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) is urging the United States Supreme Court to review a decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking a ballot initiative that would amend the Oklahoma Constitution to define "person" as "any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death." In a friend of the court brief filed last week, the LLDF told the Court that the Oklahoma court ruling conflicted with prior Supreme Court precedent and should be reversed.

Earlier this year, Personhood Oklahoma began the process of collecting signatures to place Initiative Petition 395 on the ballot. Pro-abortion individuals, backed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, filed a protest with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, claiming that IP 395 was unconstitutional and should not be permitted to be placed on the ballot.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, holding that, on its face, IP 395 conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, affirming the right of women to obtain abortions without "undue burden" from state laws. The court preemptively found the law unconstitutional and ordered that the petition be stricken.

Last month, Personhood Oklahoma filed a petition seeking review in the United States Supreme Court, and LLDF is supporting that petition with its own brief, arguing that the Oklahoma court "acted precipitously to deprive the petitioners and the people of the state of Oklahoma of their right to engage in political expression on a matter of great public concern."

"If the United States Supreme Court does not affirm the right of the people to engage in the initiative process, the people's power will diminish, and we'll be stuck with activist judges," said Dana Cody, Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. "This isn't just an Oklahoma issue; it is a threat to political freedom in any state."

Notre Dame Answers Motion to Dismiss Suit Against HHS Mandate: University Faces Immediate Harm

University of Notre Dame is contesting a Justice Department motion to dismiss its lawsuit on technical grounds, contending that the university is facing immediate harm from the HHS mandate.

The Obama administration has had some success with getting lawsuits against the HHS mandate tossed on technical grounds, arguing that they are still working to accommodate religious objections and that because the mandate hasn’t affected religious institutions as of yet, the lawsuits are not ripe. That argument has worked against the lawsuits brought by Belmont Abbey College and Wheaton College.
So it was no surprise earlier this month when the Obama administration filed a motion to have the lawsuit by the University of Notre Dame dismissed on those same technical grounds. But the university is reportedly pushing back.

In a memorandum filed in Indiana federal court Aug. 28, the University of Notre Dame opposed the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss its suit and argued that the contraception mandate forces the university to violate its faith by forcing it to provide coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures or by hiring only employees of its own religion.

Notre Dame is arguing that because of the mandate, which is scheduled to go into effect in August of next year, it’s presently facing roughly $50,000 in costs to budget consultants as well as providing for an additional $1 million set aside for potential penalties, according to Law360.com.

“Notre Dame is suffering imminent injuries to its rights from the U.S. government mandate, and, indeed, the very existence of that threat has posed collateral injuries now,” the university argued in its brief, according to Law360.com. “The U.S. government mandate and its narrow religious-employer definition require Notre Dame to face ‘a Hobson’s choice.’ On the one hand, Notre Dame would have to violate its religious beliefs were it to abide by the Mandate or its exemption. On the other, failure to adhere to those options could subject Notre Dame to various penalties.”

Notre Dame also reportedly argued that the mandate exposes it to the potential of expensive lawsuits for not complying with the mandate next year.

The Administration reportedly claimed that the suit should be tossed because it is working on amendments to the rule to accommodate religious objections.

Notre Dame argues in its brief that no matter what the Administration intends to change or doesn’t intend to change, the law as its currently written is having an effect right now and “is imposing both imminent and current harms.”

Notre Dame Law professor Richard Garnett told Notre Dame’s student newspaper he believes Notre Dame’s case is strong.

“…he said the mandate saddles the University with a responsibility that contradicts its “religiously-motivated aspiration” to be a preeminent Catholic research university.
“And, the burden is unnecessary, because it would be possible for the government to achieve its goal of expanding insurance coverage for ‘preventive services’ while accommodating religious institutions like the University,” he said.
There is no specific timeline for the case, Garnett said, and similar cases are pending across the country in different stages.
“In theory, the case could go all the way to the Supreme Court,” he said. “It could also, however, end much earlier in the process, depending on whether or not the administration revises the rule, or on the outcome of the November election.

Notre Dame Answers Motion to Dismiss Suit Against HHS Mandate: University Faces Immediate Harm

University of Notre Dame is contesting a Justice Department motion to dismiss its lawsuit on technical grounds, contending that the university is facing immediate harm from the HHS mandate.

The Obama administration has had some success with getting lawsuits against the HHS mandate tossed on technical grounds, arguing that they are still working to accommodate religious objections and that because the mandate hasn’t affected religious institutions as of yet, the lawsuits are not ripe. That argument has worked against the lawsuits brought by Belmont Abbey College and Wheaton College.
So it was no surprise earlier this month when the Obama administration filed a motion to have the lawsuit by the University of Notre Dame dismissed on those same technical grounds. But the university is reportedly pushing back.

In a memorandum filed in Indiana federal court Aug. 28, the University of Notre Dame opposed the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss its suit and argued that the contraception mandate forces the university to violate its faith by forcing it to provide coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures or by hiring only employees of its own religion.

Notre Dame is arguing that because of the mandate, which is scheduled to go into effect in August of next year, it’s presently facing roughly $50,000 in costs to budget consultants as well as providing for an additional $1 million set aside for potential penalties, according to Law360.com.

“Notre Dame is suffering imminent injuries to its rights from the U.S. government mandate, and, indeed, the very existence of that threat has posed collateral injuries now,” the university argued in its brief, according to Law360.com. “The U.S. government mandate and its narrow religious-employer definition require Notre Dame to face ‘a Hobson’s choice.’ On the one hand, Notre Dame would have to violate its religious beliefs were it to abide by the Mandate or its exemption. On the other, failure to adhere to those options could subject Notre Dame to various penalties.”

Notre Dame also reportedly argued that the mandate exposes it to the potential of expensive lawsuits for not complying with the mandate next year.

The Administration reportedly claimed that the suit should be tossed because it is working on amendments to the rule to accommodate religious objections.

Notre Dame argues in its brief that no matter what the Administration intends to change or doesn’t intend to change, the law as its currently written is having an effect right now and “is imposing both imminent and current harms.”

Notre Dame Law professor Richard Garnett told Notre Dame’s student newspaper he believes Notre Dame’s case is strong.

“…he said the mandate saddles the University with a responsibility that contradicts its “religiously-motivated aspiration” to be a preeminent Catholic research university.
“And, the burden is unnecessary, because it would be possible for the government to achieve its goal of expanding insurance coverage for ‘preventive services’ while accommodating religious institutions like the University,” he said.
There is no specific timeline for the case, Garnett said, and similar cases are pending across the country in different stages.
“In theory, the case could go all the way to the Supreme Court,” he said. “It could also, however, end much earlier in the process, depending on whether or not the administration revises the rule, or on the outcome of the November election.

Ask Your Bishop: "How Shall We Dissent?"

Thousands demonstrate in Phoenix against the HHS abortion mandate.

It's time to ask our bishops and other clergy to formulate a national strategy of opposition to the Obama administration's abortion mandate and other attacks on the nation's religious freedom, Father Marcel Guarnizo told the June 30 Fortnight for Freedom conference on the First Amendment held at Patrick Henry College in northern Virginia. Here are excerpts from Father Guarnizo's keynote address, urging letters to our religious leaders asking for guidance in this fight.

What Is to Be Done?

What is to be done? Our bishops have been calling for dissent.  I’ve heard and read many statements from, “This is the time of Henry VIII” to “We must do something.”  The times of Henry VIII were very difficult.  As you know, John Fisher was the one, lone bishop that survived that sort of persecution (survive morally, to stick by the truth).  But I don’t think we need to use too much hyperbole.  No one is talking about getting beheaded, no one is talking about any of these things right now.  I mean, to invoke Henry VIII in such things is not to take the question seriously.  They’ve talked about dissent and here we are talking about religious freedom. 

I think we need an educational campaign because a democracy cannot remain both free and ignorant.  There are far too many Americans who do not know what’s going on.  I think we should write letters to our bishops.  Dissent is not a strategy.  I was in the pro-life movement in the 90’s when we actually had civil disobedience and we had real dissent.  Dissent is not a strategy.  “We would like to know,” you should write your bishops, “what does dissent mean concretely?  What are we talking about when we say, ‘dissent’?  What are we going to do?  Are we going to have a tax protest?  Are we going to tell Catholics not to buy insurance?”

We need a real strategy because Obama could win the election and if he wins the election I don’t see how we will overturn this.  So, we need to clarify what we mean by dissent a.s.a.p.  It’s good that we’re speaking against the administration; it’s good that we’re speaking against this ObamaCare, but at this point we really need to figure out how we’re going to do this, in my opinion.  One good way to dissent, I would say, which would save us the trouble, is for bishops to put pressure on the governors to say, “We will not implement ObamaCare.”  So, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana has already said he is not going to prepare the exchanges, shorthand for he will not implement ObamaCare.  He didn’t say until when.  He didn’t say it was just up until November and then after November he would have to.  But in any case,  we should write bishops and tell them to write the governors to say we are not going to implement it because if they don’t implement it we won’t have to dissent.  They will do the dissent and we will support them.  They just say, “It doesn’t happen in Virginia.”  End of story.  They should go talk to their governors.  Bobby Jindal has said as much.  Bachmann and others are advocating and calling people.  Cantor is calling governors saying, “Do not implement it before November.” 

Exemption Is Not the Answer

The problem is what happens in November if Obama wins, of course.  Then you really have to make decisions if we’re really going to be paying for all of this.  I would say there will be some theologians who will try to argue that this is material cooperation but not formal cooperation and therefore it’s licit to cooperate.  I would argue that that is a complete ruse and remember that before this happened they were saying that was unacceptable.  If you later hear that it’s acceptable, morally acceptable, just go look at the articles when they said it was not acceptable.  What is also not acceptable is an exemption for the Catholic Church.  Morally speaking you can only ask for an exemption (and I told this to one cardinal who will remain unnamed, I think he didn’t like it very much) exemptions are not possible as a moral claim if the law is intrinsically evil or unjust.  So, I cannot ask as a Catholic Church to be exempt from slavery.  So you can enslave everybody else as long as we’re exempt.  You cannot ask if the Jewish people are made to wear the Star of David that we don’t say anything against that law as long as we’re exempt.  You can only ask for an exemption from a law that is just but that you have moral objections to, like war.  War could be just but it is true, the Quakers and others may have some moral objection and so they have a conscientious objection.  But war itself is not intrinsically evil.  You cannot ask for an exemption for something that is intrinsically evil if that is what we teach, and that is what we teach.  We have to fight something that is intrinsically evil.  Not only will we not accept an exemption, we will fight it.  And then we have to figure out how.  An exemption is morally incorrect for Catholic bishops. (In the beginning they were looking for an exemption and now they are not.  I am glad to see they are not.  I hope they hold their ground.) It is incorrect, because a parish could get an exemption; the pastor could get an exemption on his three employees in the rectory.  What happens to the Catholic businessman who runs a corporation, an office―he’s a dentist, he’s a doctor?  They’re as much a part of the Church as we are.  But they cannot ask for an exemption and they have to participate in intrinsically evil practices.  We’re always talking about the lay people and how important the lay people are.  No!  We stand with our people!  There’s no exemption for them, there’s no exemption from an intrinsically evil law, so there should be no exemption for us.  It’s a non-starter as a moral argument.  Furthermore, there are people who are not Catholic because the things that we’re objecting to can be perceived by any person of good will to be contrary to right reason, that they are evil.  They must be exempted.  And that means that everybody would have an exemption and therefore there would be no law.  So there’s no other choice than to fight the law in its totality, as being unjust and intrinsically evil. 

Ask Your Bishop: "How Shall We Dissent?"

Thousands demonstrate in Phoenix against the HHS abortion mandate.

It's time to ask our bishops and other clergy to formulate a national strategy of opposition to the Obama administration's abortion mandate and other attacks on the nation's religious freedom, Father Marcel Guarnizo told the June 30 Fortnight for Freedom conference on the First Amendment held at Patrick Henry College in northern Virginia. Here are excerpts from Father Guarnizo's keynote address, urging letters to our religious leaders asking for guidance in this fight.

What Is to Be Done?

What is to be done? Our bishops have been calling for dissent.  I’ve heard and read many statements from, “This is the time of Henry VIII” to “We must do something.”  The times of Henry VIII were very difficult.  As you know, John Fisher was the one, lone bishop that survived that sort of persecution (survive morally, to stick by the truth).  But I don’t think we need to use too much hyperbole.  No one is talking about getting beheaded, no one is talking about any of these things right now.  I mean, to invoke Henry VIII in such things is not to take the question seriously.  They’ve talked about dissent and here we are talking about religious freedom. 

I think we need an educational campaign because a democracy cannot remain both free and ignorant.  There are far too many Americans who do not know what’s going on.  I think we should write letters to our bishops.  Dissent is not a strategy.  I was in the pro-life movement in the 90’s when we actually had civil disobedience and we had real dissent.  Dissent is not a strategy.  “We would like to know,” you should write your bishops, “what does dissent mean concretely?  What are we talking about when we say, ‘dissent’?  What are we going to do?  Are we going to have a tax protest?  Are we going to tell Catholics not to buy insurance?”

We need a real strategy because Obama could win the election and if he wins the election I don’t see how we will overturn this.  So, we need to clarify what we mean by dissent a.s.a.p.  It’s good that we’re speaking against the administration; it’s good that we’re speaking against this ObamaCare, but at this point we really need to figure out how we’re going to do this, in my opinion.  One good way to dissent, I would say, which would save us the trouble, is for bishops to put pressure on the governors to say, “We will not implement ObamaCare.”  So, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana has already said he is not going to prepare the exchanges, shorthand for he will not implement ObamaCare.  He didn’t say until when.  He didn’t say it was just up until November and then after November he would have to.  But in any case,  we should write bishops and tell them to write the governors to say we are not going to implement it because if they don’t implement it we won’t have to dissent.  They will do the dissent and we will support them.  They just say, “It doesn’t happen in Virginia.”  End of story.  They should go talk to their governors.  Bobby Jindal has said as much.  Bachmann and others are advocating and calling people.  Cantor is calling governors saying, “Do not implement it before November.” 

Exemption Is Not the Answer

The problem is what happens in November if Obama wins, of course.  Then you really have to make decisions if we’re really going to be paying for all of this.  I would say there will be some theologians who will try to argue that this is material cooperation but not formal cooperation and therefore it’s licit to cooperate.  I would argue that that is a complete ruse and remember that before this happened they were saying that was unacceptable.  If you later hear that it’s acceptable, morally acceptable, just go look at the articles when they said it was not acceptable.  What is also not acceptable is an exemption for the Catholic Church.  Morally speaking you can only ask for an exemption (and I told this to one cardinal who will remain unnamed, I think he didn’t like it very much) exemptions are not possible as a moral claim if the law is intrinsically evil or unjust.  So, I cannot ask as a Catholic Church to be exempt from slavery.  So you can enslave everybody else as long as we’re exempt.  You cannot ask if the Jewish people are made to wear the Star of David that we don’t say anything against that law as long as we’re exempt.  You can only ask for an exemption from a law that is just but that you have moral objections to, like war.  War could be just but it is true, the Quakers and others may have some moral objection and so they have a conscientious objection.  But war itself is not intrinsically evil.  You cannot ask for an exemption for something that is intrinsically evil if that is what we teach, and that is what we teach.  We have to fight something that is intrinsically evil.  Not only will we not accept an exemption, we will fight it.  And then we have to figure out how.  An exemption is morally incorrect for Catholic bishops. (In the beginning they were looking for an exemption and now they are not.  I am glad to see they are not.  I hope they hold their ground.) It is incorrect, because a parish could get an exemption; the pastor could get an exemption on his three employees in the rectory.  What happens to the Catholic businessman who runs a corporation, an office―he’s a dentist, he’s a doctor?  They’re as much a part of the Church as we are.  But they cannot ask for an exemption and they have to participate in intrinsically evil practices.  We’re always talking about the lay people and how important the lay people are.  No!  We stand with our people!  There’s no exemption for them, there’s no exemption from an intrinsically evil law, so there should be no exemption for us.  It’s a non-starter as a moral argument.  Furthermore, there are people who are not Catholic because the things that we’re objecting to can be perceived by any person of good will to be contrary to right reason, that they are evil.  They must be exempted.  And that means that everybody would have an exemption and therefore there would be no law.  So there’s no other choice than to fight the law in its totality, as being unjust and intrinsically evil.