Video: Catholic deacon files suit against HHS mandate
posted at 10:01 am on February 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
Via Deacon Greg, this puts a new spin on the question of religious exemptions to the HHS contraception mandate. The Obama administration claims it has solved the problem by extending religious exemptions to churches, and now religious-affiliated non-profits. But what happens when an ordained minister owns a for-profit company? And what if just three years ago, the same ordained minister was hailed worldwide as a hero for the rescue of trapped miners in Chile? KSTP and KAAL-TV, ABC affiliates in Minnesota, profile a new lawsuit filed by Greg Hall, a deacon in Houston who owns a Minnesota mining-equipment manufacturer:
Greg Hall, a Roman Catholic church deacon in Houston, owns American Manufacturing Company in St. Joseph and filed a federal suit Tuesday evening, saying the contraception mandate violates his religious freedom. …
Hall says his religious beliefs will not allow him to obey the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to offer contraception and abortion pills.
His attorney, Erick Kaardal, says the mandate violates the Religious Freedom & Restoration Act, which says the government is not supposed to pass laws that create a substantial burden on peoples’ religious freedoms.
Hall, who teaches moral theology as part of his duties as a deacon of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, says the mandate conflicts with his religious and moral beliefs.
Be sure to watch to the end, when the anchors express alarm that this may affect “women throughout the state … over 900,000, according to Planned Parenthood.” How? By not forcing companies like American Manufacturing to distribute birth control for free? Again, a 20-year CDC study on unplanned pregnancy showed that 99% of sexually-active women wishing to avoid pregnancy managed to find their own birth control all on their little lonesomes without Big Daddy Government forcing people to supply it, and that a lack of access to it didn’t even figure into the causes of unplanned pregnancy in any statistically significant way.
The Constitution protects the right of people to live a life consonant with their religious beliefs. It doesn’t say that government can trump that for “free” birth control. Hall’s case will make for an interesting test.
Related Posts:
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
This is a perfect headline. It amazes me that so many people or the MSM don’t understand that the Church any Church presents Christ to the people not the other way around.
CW20 on March 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Well said, Ed.
Jeff Weimer on March 13, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Ed,
Mass media is always concerned about power that they do not control or at least influence as they trust no one and have faith in nothing.
That is why you see this kind of stupidity, the Post is treating the Catholic Church as though it were a democratic institution, which can be shaped and molded into the “correct” view of the way things should be.
LincolntheHun on March 13, 2013 at 12:22 PM
ah,
that whole Judeo-Christian thingy is so last millennia.
Belong to your government already Ed.
FlaMurph on March 13, 2013 at 12:25 PM
This sentence is somewhat garbled.
J.S.K. on March 13, 2013 at 12:28 PM
I’m assuming you are trying to say the faith and doctrine should help shape public opinion as well as private behavior. If so then I disagree with one point it should also shape public behavior otherwise you get the Pelosi’s and Kennedy’s that claim to be of a faith tradition but don’t practice it.
chemman on March 13, 2013 at 12:29 PM
If the Catholic Church recognizes it’s not an authority on natural science (and it largely has), I see no reason it needs to change to “fit the moment.”
Bat Chain Puller on March 13, 2013 at 12:29 PM
Most excellent point.
Wow… try this on for size…
Hmmmm.
freedomfirst on March 13, 2013 at 12:31 PM
You do realize that the number of articles published in “reputable” science journals that have had to be withdrawn because of fraud is approaching 60%. It seems even the “scientists” aren’t very good authorities on natural science.
chemman on March 13, 2013 at 12:34 PM
Father Pacwa of EWTN explains this phenomena pretty well. The culture desires the church to accept what they consider perfectly natural because the majority agrees. The Church is not, never has been, and will never be a democracy that gets to decide what God has deemed immoral.
fourdeucer on March 13, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Real scientists are. Political rent-seekers aren’t.
God bless Richard Feynman, R.I.P.
Bat Chain Puller on March 13, 2013 at 12:39 PM
That fraud has nothing to do with the science, it is all about the funding streams.
Happy Nomad on March 13, 2013 at 12:39 PM
While you are correct, that 50ish percent of published studies were non-replicable (at least by Bell Labs) that is not quite the same thing as fraud, which ascribes an intent.
There is bad science, there are mistakes in annotations of steps necessary to replicate and experiment, and then there is cold fusion, and global warming.
LincolntheHun on March 13, 2013 at 12:39 PM
i don’t think the number of reporters is indicative of anything, really. a media circus doesn’t mean something is actually important, as you should well know. (i bet even more reporters are assigned to the british royal couple, who could not be less relevant or more anachronistic.)
sesquipedalian on March 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM
A newspaper written by Marxists, for Marxists, with a daily circulation of 462,000 shouldn’t really matter much to Conservatives or Catholics. Why hotair continues to regurgitate NYT and WaPo stories as if anyone cares what those papers say is a mystery to me. Why feed the beast by repeating their inane rants and myth-making which only serves to empower and embolden them?
Afterseven on March 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM
I never can wrap my head around this. If it’s true, then why do they consider themselves Catholics? Why, when the Pope pronounces his opposition to abortion, do “practicing and avowed Catholics” like Nancy Pelosi debate the Pope on that very issue?
I get sick of this tail-wagging-the-dog stuff.
If you’re a Catholic, then act like one. If what the Pope proclaims is irrelevant to you, and is wrong in your eyes, then find something else.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Oh! I’d argue that Vatican II was in some part the RCC bowing to cultural desire. I’m not saying that any doctrine was ignored or voted away but the claim that the church is monolithic and deaf to societal trends is not exactly accurate.
Happy Nomad on March 13, 2013 at 12:43 PM
If it were due to simple human error, shouldn’t our advancements reduce errors rather than increase them exponentially to the funding granted?
astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Pelosi would argue that she does act like a Catholic. You see, it isn’t her personal beliefs but all those Protestant heathens she represents that forces her to vote for the extermination of life at the convenience of the mother.
Happy Nomad on March 13, 2013 at 12:45 PM
If your right eye offends you…
astonerii on March 13, 2013 at 12:48 PM
Then she is even more despicable. If it was possible for me to trust a politician, I would trust her even less if she renounces her faith, because the people she represents demand it.
Jesus spoke about this.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 13, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Could you be referring to the Latin Mass, or the elimination of the Communion rail, or the Priest facing the congregation? Pope Benedict addressed most of the issues that were misinterpreted in Vatican II.
fourdeucer on March 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM
The MSM would not understand the significance of a sturdy rock in a turbulent sea.
dddave on March 13, 2013 at 12:57 PM
More evidence of the cluelessness of the media. They still act like the Catholic Church is some sort of private country club.
Apparently, even God Himself must adjust His principles for liberalism.
Kingfisher on March 13, 2013 at 12:57 PM
True. Michelle Obama’s latest hairstyle/fashion choices make a perfect example.
Bitter Clinger on March 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Does she not represent pro-life Catholics too or did the last Catholic leave S.F. already?
Kingfisher on March 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Those would be examples, yes. But my point stands. Vatican II or the way it was enacted was most decidedly responding to popular culture.
Happy Nomad on March 13, 2013 at 1:00 PM
peelosi and the rest of the catholics in name only need to be dealt with….repent, receive forgiveness and no longer follow the evil that they have spouted for years. Afterall,did not teddy kennedy break more than a few church teachings and yet the church allowed them to be and act like nothing ever happened. They get to spread the lies and be hypocrites and nothing is ever done. The church in America, including the Catholic church has no spine. Christians in other countries are losing there lives over the very faith we proclaim and yet we are weak kneed and jelly spined and allow politicians to co opt issues that are God issues, not man issues. Until the church starts punishing the pelosis and kennedys et al, there is no credance in what they do.No more wink and nods, grow a spine church….
crosshugger on March 13, 2013 at 1:01 PM
If there is such a thing as a pro-life Catholic in SF then there is a word for them- tourist.
Seriously though, I merely put forth Pelosi’s repeated claim how she can be a “good Catholic” with a culture of death voting record.
I personally don’t believe she, Sebelius, Biden, or any of these other supposedly devout Democrats are really all that concerned with their faith other than for political purposes. How can you be a Catholic and defend the HHS mandate?
Happy Nomad on March 13, 2013 at 1:04 PM
The bigger the % of Catholics that disagree with the Church’s moral teachings the better … so I say full steam ahead on preserving the Church’s traditional teachings and all this “stay the course” talk.
ZachV on March 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM
Then they can get out.
It isn’t 1200 anymore. We won’t kill you all for leaving.
Spade on March 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM
In the Encyclical Letter “Caritas In Veritate” Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his last paragraph of the introduction
fourdeucer on March 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM
While I understand your point, and it isn’t entirely untrue that size of media circus does not indicate a subject’s importance or its relevance to a particular issue (i.e., tons of reporters and people follow what Jennifer Annison does, but that doesn’t make her relevant to economic issues), it cannot be written off in terms of general relevance – defined as things people care about.
I don’t think something can be considered “irrelevant” if it is objectively followed by millions of people and covered by hundreds of reporters from around the world. For instance, you personally may consider the royal couple irrelevant – the fact that millions of people appear to care enough to require constant media coverage shows it is not true. Now, one can argue that the royal couple are irrelevant to something specific and not be wrong – for instance, they are likely irrelevant to gov’t policy in Great Britain. But, it is hard to argue that something is irrelevant if millions of people care about it.
Anachronistic is a different matter. Something can be considered anachronistic by some but not others. It is pretty subjective. Someone who believes in moral relevance and that there are no objective moral laws would likely see the Catholic Church as anachronistic and it does not matter if millions of people are following it. However, it is again difficult to make that claim if millions of people are following it – something truly “out of time” would not be followed by so many people.
the general point being, if the Catholic Church were totally irrelevant to today’s world, millions of people would not be enthralled by the conclave.
Monkeytoe on March 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Millions were enthralled by the William/Kate royal wedding but that didn’t make them British.
The concept of relevancy is overly broad and can’t be determined by a simple nose count. Europe is filled with Catholics who haven’t been to a mass in decades. How relevant is the church to them? The real question is what role the church plays in society and in that context the church is extremely relevant within society as a religious institution but also for the works it does.
Happy Nomad on March 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM
I don’t disagree. I’m must saying, for someone like sesqui who likely hates the Catholic Church and wants to claim it is irrelevant in today’s world, it is hard to make that claim when the media feels the need to cover it to this extent. It all depends on how one defines “relevant”. But, in an objective sense, something is relevant in today’s world if lots of people care about it. the media frenzy over the conclave is some objective evidence that the Catholic Church remains relevant.
Monkeytoe on March 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM
Maybe I dunno, I’m just a grumpy guy, but it annoys me to no end that American Catholics (and I am going to assume European Catholics too) who aren’t even religious want the Church to change to match THEIR world view.
And their world view is basically everything against what the Church stands for.
daoster on March 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM
yes, but you can’t ignore the hype effect: the media want you to think that you are witnessing something important to generate viewership. this is what the media thrive on; they would impregnate kate middleton every year if they could.
exit question: are kim kardashian or justin bieber relevant in any meaningful way? they sure are popular.
sesquipedalian on March 13, 2013 at 2:05 PM
As I was saying…restrict your polling to people who are actively Catholic, and not just anyone who checks the “Catholic” box on a form, and your polling results will be quite different. The media use the term “Catholic” as a swinging gate, allowing even those who haven’t been inside a church in twenty years (save for funerals and weddings) to be counted as “Catholic,” but then they don’t mention this when they release the poll results, implicitly suggesting that all those Catholics who disagree with x or y are at Mass every weekend.
bmmg39 on March 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM
White smoke = new pope elected
CoffeeLover on March 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM
It all depends on how you define relevant. If you are defining relevant as “ruling the world”, then no, the Catholic Church is not relevant. If you are defining relevant as having meaningful impact on a lot of peoples’ lives, then it is clearly relevant.
I don’t see any other religion’s events covered the same way the Catholic Church’s events, statements, proclamations, etc. are covered. To claim the Catholic Church is irrelevant defies reality.
I don’t disagree that media creates hype. But, usually there has to be some actual interest in the first place before the media can create the hype. the media could cover Netroots with the same exact amount of hype and coverage that they are covering the conclave and people still wouldn’t care about Netroots.
I’m not sure what your argument is. Are you just picking nits and arguing that media coverage, by itself, does not establish relevance? If so,my answer is that you are correct it does not, but it is some indication of relevance. Great interest in something tends to show that thing is not irrelevant. Now, the next question is relevant to what?
But to claim that the Catholic Church no longer has any relevance is pretty far-fetched, based on simple numbers. Number of people claiming to be Catholic. Number of people attending church. Number of people interested in the conclave.
Why would non-Catholics be interested in the conclave if the Catholic Church held no relevance outside of its own parishioners? Spectacle maybe? Sure, maybe.
Of course, if the Catholic Church held on relevance to those people, they would not constantly harangue the Church and lecture the Church on how it needs to change. If something is irrelevant, you don’t care about it. It doesn’t matter. When you have strong feelings about something – as liberals do toward the Catholic Church – it demonstrates its relevance.
Monkeytoe on March 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM
On the contrary, Pope Paul VI reaffirmed traditional Catholic teaching in 1968 with Humanae Vitae. Some very dissident U.S. theologians and priests had been actively promoting among their followers that Vatican II would be the “modernization” of the Catholic Church they had been hoping for, that it would now be acceptable for Catholics to use artificial birth control, among other things. But when the pope’s encyclical came out, these theologians and priests promoted active disobedience to it among the faithful. The encyclical was controversial only to them; to those who followed traditional Catholic teachings, it was what they had always been following.
But the utter confusion, doubt and uncertainty that arose from this situation is still being played out today. The damage and fallout is being repaired, but it has been very slow going over the decades.
PatriotGal2257 on March 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM
…that was fast…
bmmg39 on March 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM
what i’m saying is that using the number of reporters assigned to cover the event to ascertain the church’s relevance, as ed insists on doing here (see update), is a lazy way to make an argument.
the relevance of the roman catholic church is an interesting topic of discussion, but using the media circus surrounding the election of a new pope is not a ggod start, and it invites half-serious questions like mine about kardashian.
sesquipedalian on March 13, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Yep … EWTN said that Benedict XVI was elected on the fourth ballot. I think this one was five.
PatriotGal2257 on March 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM
So, you are here to pick nits. I see. I’m not sure I agree that number of reporters from how many different countries is not some objective measure or has no bearing. I don’t think Kim Kardashian is covered by media from around the world. I agree that it is not the end of such a calculation, but it certainly “relevant” to the discussion.
And, “the relevance of the roman catholic church is an interesting topic of discussion” – that’s only true to a liberal who wants to try and claim the Catholic Church is irrelevant. Only someone wanting to make that argument would want to bother with such a conversation. If you think it is irrelevant, why would you want to bother arguing about it? the questions answers itself.
Monkeytoe on March 13, 2013 at 2:52 PM