Judges: Obama Admin Can Force Nuns To Violate Their Beliefs

“As Little Sisters of the Poor, we simply cannot choose between our care for the elderly poor and our faith,” states Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire, a spokeswoman for the Little Sisters of the Poor. “And we should not have to make that choice, because it violates our nation’s commitment to ensuring that people from diverse faiths can freely follow God’s calling in their lives.”

Maguire said that for more than 175 years, her group has “served the neediest in society with love and dignity.”

“All we ask is to be able to continue our religious vocation free from government intrusion,” she said.

Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund, is lead attorney for the Little Sisters.

“After losing repeatedly at the Supreme Court, the government continues its unrelenting pursuit of the Little Sisters of the Poor,” he said. “It is a national embarrassment that the world’s most powerful government insists that, instead of providing contraceptives through its own existing exchanges and programs, it must crush the Little Sisters’ faith and force them to participate. Untold millions of people have managed to get contraceptives without involving nuns, and there is no reason the government cannot run its programs without hijacking the Little Sisters and their health plan.”

The court claimed participating in the government’s contraception delivery scheme is “as easy as obtaining a parade permit, filing a simple tax form, or registering to vote.” The court rejected the Sisters belief that participating in the scheme “make[s] them complicit in the overall delivery scheme.”

“We will keep on fighting for the Little Sisters, even if that means having to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Baldock said the majority simply got it wrong.

“The government has left self-insured plaintiffs in a position where they must decide whether their beneficiaries will actually receive objected-to contraceptive coverage,” he wrote. “The accommodation does not absolve these plaintiffs of this responsibility. Instead, it forces them to either (1) violate their sincere religious beliefs by performing an action that will cause their beneficiaries to receive objected-to coverage, or (2) violate the law. … This is a Hobson’s choice and thus a substantial burden on their religious exercise.”

He said the way the Obama administration has arranged the rules, “the orders would indeed force self-insured religious objectors to perform an act that causes the ultimate provision of the coverage, as they would make the provision of the coverage wholly contingent upon the religious objectors’ acts of providing HHS with that notice.”

Source: wnd.com



Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest