Notre Dame faculty calls Obama so-called accommodation “grave violation of religious freedom”

posted at 1:20 pm on February 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama White House tried defusing the controversy over its HHS mandate last Friday by revving up their PR machine to claim that shifting the communication responsibility from religious-organization employers to the insurance companies for the mandated no-cost contraception and abortifacient coverage would address the concerns of those whose religions forbid the use of such products and services.  Some of the usual suspects claimed to have been satisfied with the “accommodation,” such as E. J. Dionne, but for the most part, those arguments fell on deaf ears.  The Wall Street Journal reports that 48 hours after the White House announcement — made without any consultation with those objecting to the HHS mandate — Roman Catholic churches across the nation echoed with blasts from the pulpit over the arrogance of Obama’s action:

At masses across the country Sunday, Roman Catholic priests blasted the Obama administration’s compromise on contraceptive insurance coverage, a sign the White House’s backtrack late last week did little to defuse the controversy. …

At St. Brendan Church in San Francisco, the Rev. Michael Quinn compared the church’s opposition to the contraceptive rules to the civil-rights fight waged by 1950s activist Rosa Parks, who refused to give her seat up to a white man on a bus. “I believe this is our Rosa Parks moment,” Father Quinn told more than 200 parishioners on Sunday. “This is our moment to say this is wrong.”

Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami said that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s attempt to strike a compromise, it doesn’t go far enough.

“A legislative remedy to this overreaching and unprecedented incursion of state power into the domain of religious freedom and the rights of conscience is still necessary,” he said in a statement.

“By what authority does the President of the United States seek to impose this immoral policy?” Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, R.I., asked in a statement. “This is the United States, not North Korea.”

Three years ago, Notre Dame University provided Obama a platform to speak to Catholics and awarded him an honorary degree.  Yesterday, the faculty at the Catholic university — which would be subject to the mandate — gave him the third degree instead, excoriating Obama for a “grave violation of religious freedom”:

Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members–led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars–have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”

The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School–is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.

Prof. Carter Snead, a professor of law at Notre Dame, was one of the lead organizers of the statement, which was published on his official law school letterhead. Notre Dame’s top ethics expert, Snead serves as director of the university’s Center for Ethics and Culture, a position to which he was appointed by Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame.

In 2009, Father Jenkins awarded President Barack Obama an honorary Notre Dame law degree. …

“This so-called ‘accommodation’ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy,” they said.  “It is certainly no compromise.  The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust.  Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.”

I’d hate to tell Notre Dame I told you so, but in fact a number of Catholics, myself included, did warn Notre Dame in 2009 about inviting Obama to deliver that commencement speech.  My objection was specific to the honorary law degree Notre Dame awarded Obama for that appearance, a jarring decision given Obama’s previous attacks on the Catholic Church’s positions on life, especially in the Illinois Senate.  Now the same law school that awarded Obama a law school degree is shocked, shocked to find that Obama thinks he can arrogate to himself the power to dictate to religious organizations that they have to facilitate actions which are forbidden by their core doctrinal values.

The Live Free or Die State is also considering a statement opposing Obama’s arrogance, too:

New Hampshire’s House Republicans plan to take on the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services Monday by passing a non-binding resolution condemning the department’s new rule mandating religious institutions provide health coverage that includes free birth control.

NH Journal has learned House Speaker William O’Brien, who identifies himself as a constitutionalist, is incensed at the Obama rule because he believes it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

House Resolution 29 “calls upon the United States Department of Health and Human Services to cease its unconstitutional course of action, and to rescind this rule immediately; and the House further calls upon the members of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation to undertake whatever actions are necessary to ensure that this goal is promptly achieved.”

If the White House thought they had defused the situation on Friday, they were very much mistaken.  The same political problem exists today, only with the extra dollop of arrogance from an administration that calculated an “accommodation” without bothering to consult their erstwhile allies in the Catholic Church and its organizations.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.

bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!

SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)

He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.

Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2