Little Sisters Of The Poor Update

Read and sexual expression three children that their main agenda is the policy president John Preston also monitors one pleased to have Dr. Helen Alvarez with the program is a professor of law at George Mason University and the founder of women's week for themselves.

Choose a consultant to Pope Francis is pontifical Council for the laity, as well as a consultant to ABC news. Additionally, Helen is chair of the conscience protection task force at the Witherspoon Institute. Helen wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Little sisters of the poor and the stupid B Burwell religious liberty case before the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued an opinion. In that case on May 16 in order to be talking with her about that opinion and what it means for the case and for the Little sisters of the poor. In particular, hello and welcome to family policy matter to try to thank you for having me. Well, it's a delight. Now hello before we talk about the Supreme Court's opinion in this critical religious liberty case tell us briefly if you would for the benefit of our listeners about the big B Burwell and father Little sisters of the poor and other religious nonprofits challenge the federal government's contraceptive coverage mandate February 2012 we know that in accord with the provision of the affordable care act, said now preventive care for women must be in certain healthcare policies, the Department of Health and Human Services, I'll just call them HHS issued a regulation that said churches didn't have to provide contraception and some early abortifacients like the morning after tell.

But religious institutions that were not churches fly old HR schools, hospitals, they had to provide it later issued a correction that said all right you will accommodate you in the sense that you fill out a form that said, here's my insurance plan and here for employees that are covered and you put the contraception in my insurance plan for my employees and by the way also for the minor daughters you educate them you send stuff to their house and educate them via the mail or email about contraception and abortion in connection with my health care plan a bunch religious. In fact, I think it was actually more evangelical than Catholic but but it beats about evangelical and Catholic, and possibly other religions as well. Filed lawsuits and said this is a violation of religious freedom we are facilitating the provision of something that goes against our faith. By the way, if we don't pay your finest hundred dollars per day per employee.

So for instance to the Little sisters of the poor group of nuns that actually gets by 100% on banking.

They were told working to find you $70 million a year and will provide no that's the origin of the lawsuits, the federal government can go into the legal argument a little bit more as we go on but that's how it got started.

Supreme Court case on March 23.

Of the few. Not long after that on May 16. As I mentioned, the court responded with a somewhat unusual request for both religious nonprofits and the government tells about the courtroom request opinion what it means for the future of this case right so it is very interesting and rarely done Supreme Court expert could tell you it's done a few times before, but it seems that the court was trying to avoid a loss. That's how I read the tea leaves. They were also trying to make to avoid making law, where the court is eight justices and it was maybe split for four on parts of the religious freedom claim may be split 53 on other parts. I think there's an element here.

Not wanting to see the government calling off the little sisters and cops okay just had to play a role to what they said is with the government, you got this entire set of exchanges where you give healthcare policies you said along the course of this case that G women get contraception from you know some of the hundreds of community health centers that are funded by state money they get it at Planned Parenthood government also funds to a great deal of money and get it through a spouse's plan to get it over the counter you talked about the many ways in which women could get contraception other than what it Supreme Court oral argument occasionally referred to as hijacking the little sisters plan. Why don't you tell us about another way, cast in supplemental briefs that you could get contraception to employees and their minor daughters and then we'll have the Little sisters of the other plaintiffs response and see if we can come to some agreement here that the government filed a brief where it it was very grudging and they basically said they already were using what they call the least restrictive means that is the means least pressuring religious freedom in order to deliver contraception is women and girls and a little sisters and the other plaintiffs came back and said all we can think of about eight different ways you can do it adheres bunch of an gave everybody the idea that the Supreme Court was first of all, believing the little sisters in their claim that this mandate did constitute a burden on their religion and that they were not convinced that the government's existing program was the least restrictive means of realizing its desire to funnel contraception and girls for free your listening policy matter as a resource for him to listen to our radio show online enter more resources that will be a voice of persuasion in your community to our website and see family.org for the benefit and understanding of our listeners on many of them are familiar with Hobby lobby told Mr. Wood case which dealt with similar work for claims religious freedom restoration claims against the affordable care act, contraceptive mandate, how does this case for income. In simple terms, you can make it simple case of this consolidation of actually seven different cases differ from the Hobby lobby case. Couple of things first Hobby lobby was a for-profit corporation. They are not a religious order for an explicitly religious university or other institution. They are religious people who got together and formed a corporation that is part of it it's bylaws states that were religious people and we want to use our corporate work in order to serve God, and they have all kinds of practices that avoid cooperation with things that they regard as problematic because of their Christian faith. But Hobby lobby was about for-profit corporations, whereas all these cases consolidated with the little sisters were all about religious explicitly religious institutions. The other thing was that Hobby lobby had to confront question can a corporation now can can an incorporated entity. Be a person who practices religious freedom for purposes of getting protection for their religious freedom and so they were really really interesting questions and they were settled in favor of Hobby lobby. They said yeah corporations can have religious purposes. In fact, some terrific briefs filed in Hobby lobby that showed that the very you know those who settled the US right date of the corporations involved the East India tea company.

Any of these other British and other corporations that funded the ships that them over here and invested in United actually had as part of the purpose built a Christian nation you to tip to proselytize to spread Christianity to new soil plus the language of the religious freedom statute that was being used in Hobby lobby case was very explicit about corporations being persons, the government was crying trying to take the position that once you incorporate, you give up your individual religious freedom, and they said by the way, corporations had none for the Supreme Court is not very happy with the federal government on that integrated minute.

So anybody who wants to for purposes of building a business to take the corporate form has now given up their personal religious freedom really.

So anyway, the government lost that and and Hobby lobby wine. But remember that Hobby lobby. Also one by contesting only abortifacients and they did not have a problem with regular contraception. They only had a problem with those forms of drugs and devices that Wilder called contraceptive. Can the government admitted that they can destroy human embryos, reporting distinctions and help them understand that some have character laws, the Scotus opinion in the case as a smack down of sorts of governments contraceptive coverage mandate would you go so far as to agree with that characterization moment because the government's obsession with contraception. I admit that this wonderful conference with a variety of of religious groups.

One thing that pointed out was you know the distinct quality business has been very good for this White House go guns blazing contraception. They're not really free. They don't have social equality will never make it in this economy victims going back no phone list date with 1700 government is fast with contraception and sexual expression free of children.

It's it's just so evident that their main agenda and I think it distracts people from let's say there may be not doing another issues, especially for women and families but I digress the government is so fast it seems to me that although the court in their recent decisions sent these cases back allowance that we vacate. That means we get rid of the opinions at the Courts of Appeals by way on religious institutions lost most of those cases got rid of all of them. Both the losses and the one when they said we now because of the supplemental briefing have a somewhat better idea regarding waves that the government to deliver contraception to women and girls working for religious institutions, with less restriction on religious freedom that they they sent it back thinking that the government will settle with these institutions, or maybe even rewrite it's Dragon, you realize that with the flick of his little wrist. Obama could meet all this go away hundreds of millions of dollars, said that his administration has spent trying to run the little sisters to ground and and and even technical colleges and all these other groups he could have contraceptive every woman girl in America three times over.

That obviously was not his point point was to bring religion to heal and so it is not clear to me that he will settle these cases at the Courts of Appeals he makes continue to argue all right. Even with this new round of supplemental briefing clarifying other ways to get contraception to women and girls through these religious we still think the little sisters lose. Now this the deed. The smack down part of the opinion is that the government was actually arguing that the little sisters didn't have any religious freedom complaint at all because they weren't even burdened that having to give the government the information so that the government can attach drugs and devices against their religion to their insurance plan was not a violation of the religion.

Why not well because the government said it was the government was arguing that it gets to decide whether your religious exercises. That is a very frightening thing you tell the little sisters you're confused about your theology will let you know when your consciences. It seems to me, although the court swore up and down in its short opinion that it did not make a holding on this question. The government of little sisters get to decide that it was enough of the vote to find a burden.

Otherwise, I don't think they would've sent the case back down there when he said there's no burden case to go forward. The other thing about this is that I think even though they swore up and down they were making a finding of least restrictive means clearly it wouldn't have asked her several mental briefing or set it back down. If they didn't think that something in this approved the breeds supplied means less restrictive on religious freedom to deliver contraception well and I know that you work closely with the poor throughout this process. In this case we will surely continue in prayer for a great outcome is below records to revisit this issue and make a ruling.

Hopefully in a very favorable away from being sisters of the poor and the other organizations that are involved in this case probably before leave home. I will give you an opportunity let our listeners know where they can go to learn more about the little sisters of the poor case and also about your organization. Women speak for themselves.

Thank you women speak for themselves.com our armada we call it empowering local intelligence. We know that things get done locally by real women like in the pro-life movement which women kept alive all these decades.

For the most part we want to do the same thing for religious freedom is for notion of women's freedom that actually in line with women's experience. Dr. Helen Albro want to thank you so much for being with us on family policy matters this week.

Thank you so much. You've been listening to family policy matters of production and see family to listen to our radio show online, and for more valuable resources and information about issues important to families in North Carolina website and see family.org and follow us on Twitter and Facebook