Bill Donohue comments on Friday’s decision by a federal judge who issued an injunction that allows the owners of a private company not to provide abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilization services to their employees as mandated by ObamaCare:

The ruling in Newland v. Sebelius is significant: it means that the Obama administration not only has to contend with Catholic non-profits who object to providing immoral services in their healthcare plans, they must deal with Catholics in the private sector who similarly object. By invoking the Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment religious liberty guarantees, the plaintiffs broke new ground for private employers.

Lawyers for the Obama administration were taken aback when U.S. District Judge John Kane sided with the Catholic owners of Hercules Industries. The attorneys for the government were correct when they maintained that if the injunction were granted, it would mean that they would be faced with a flood of requests seeking an exemption. “These interests are countered,” Judge Kane said, “and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

The Catholic League will do what it can to get the word out to all Catholic business owners: the time to revolt is now. There is no virtue in complying with a government edict that violates the conscience rights of Catholics, independent of whether they work in the public or private sector. But there is great virtue in suing the administration by invoking the religious liberty principles as articulated in this case.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest initiatives to secure religious liberty:

Yesterday, Daniel Cardinal DiNardo heralded the inclusion of the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, and key provisions from the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, in the appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2013 of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor/HHS. These measures would strengthen the right of health care providers not to provide for abortion, and would protect religious entities who object to those parts of ObamaCare they deem objectionable.

Also this week, while the seven states that filed suit against the so-called contraception mandate lost when a U.S. District judge said they lacked standing, he noted something important: Judge Warren K. Urbom cited the fact that “the rule is currently undergoing a process of amendment to accommodate these organizations.”

What Judge Urbom says is true, and perhaps the discussions will yield positive results. But if they do not, the Catholic community is not walking away. Importantly, Catholics are not alone. Here’s another development this week: Wheaton College, a distinguished Protestant institution, has joined the Catholic University of America in suing over the mandate. It did so purely on religious-liberty grounds.

Moreover, the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act was introduced last week by Rep. James Sensenbrenner and Rep. Diane Black. It would block any punitive taxes from being levied on religious organizations that refuse to accede to the anti-religious liberty components of ObamaCare.

It was also announced last week that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago has joined the Catholic Charities of the Dioceses of Joliet and Springfield in challenging these components.

Over 20 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate, and if all else fails, there is still the possibility of civil disobedience. Stay tuned.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding ObamaCare:

The only way Catholic non-profits could have survived the encroachment of the federal government on their right not to buy insurance for services they deem immoral was if the entire ObamaCare legislation had been struck down. That did not happen.

The Supreme Court did not rule today on the constitutionality of the right of the Obama administration to force Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization in their insurance plans; this Health and Human Services (HHS) edict was issued after the high court accepted the ObamaCare bill. Eventually, this particular issue will reach the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court decision lacks clarity, the Catholic response will be anything but ambiguous: the battle lines between the bishops and the Obama administration are now brighter than ever. Fortunately, not only do practicing Catholics overwhelmingly support the bishops, tens of millions of non-Catholics also do.

ObamaCare may have survived, but it is by no means a lock that the HHS mandate will. It is one thing to levy a tax, quite another to level the First Amendment.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on lawsuits filed today against the Obama administration. At issue is the constitutionality of the Health and Human Services edict seeking to force Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptive services and sterilization in their insurance plans:

This is a great day for those who believe in religious liberty. Suing the Obama administration for seeking to trash the First Amendment rights of Catholics are 43 Catholic dioceses and institutions from all over the nation.

Among those filing suit are: the Archdiocese of New York; the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.; the Archdiocese of St. Louis; the Diocese of Rockville Centre; the Diocese of Dallas; the Diocese of Fort Worth; the Diocese of Pittsburgh; the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend; the Michigan Catholic Conference (which represents all seven dioceses in the state); Catholic University of America; Franciscan University of Steubenville; and the University of Notre Dame. Entities ranging from retirement homes to publishing houses joined the lawsuits.

There will be more. And depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules next month on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, this may just be the beginning.

Catholics are sending an unmistakable sign to President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, et al. that we will not be obedient. We will not do as we are told. Instead, we will do what is just. The Catholic rebellion has begun.

Bill Donohue comments on the latest confrontation between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration:

Two developments in the last 24 hours offer new evidence that the confrontation between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration is reaching collision course dimensions: yesterday, attorneys for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) made plain their objections to the alleged “accommodations” offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); and today the Franciscan University of Steubenville announced that as a result of the HHS mandate it would drop student health care insurance programs starting in the next academic year.

Writing for the bishops, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr. and Michael F. Moses listed six objections to the HHS mandate that would force Catholic non-profits to pay for morally objectionable services in their insurance plans. One central objection was the “unprecedented” attempt to redefine religious employers as entities that hire and serve mostly people of their own religion; it would effectively nullify the religious exemption traditionally afforded such institutions as Catholic social service agencies, hospitals and colleges.

Another major point, one which speaks directly to the concerns of Franciscan University, is that it mandates such organizations to “either drop out of the health insurance marketplace” or “provide coverage that violates their deeply-held convictions.” Fr. Terence Henry, the courageous president of the university, will not be bullied.

Both the crabbed redefinition of a religious institution, and the either/or conditions it offers Catholic non-profits, are classic Catch-22 politics. The goal, which is to punish Catholic organizations if they don’t bow to the secular edicts of the Obama administration, couldn’t be more transparent.

The war on religion continues. Anyone who thought it was fading away needs a reality check. We stand with the USCCB.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Sally Quinn’s “On Faith” blog at the Washington Post:

It’s no secret that Sally Quinn (who is not Catholic) has a problem with the Catholic Church (save for soup-kitchen Catholics). But today she outdid herself: Of the three lead stories on her Washington Post blog, three are on Catholicism. One is positive, and two are decidedly negative.

The one positive piece doesn’t count. Why? Because it’s about Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, a Catholic, who is about to sign into law a bill to outlaw capital punishment. The reason this issue doesn’t count is because it’s all window-dressing: exactly one person has been executed in Connecticut in the past 37 years. Now if Malloy were to outlaw abortion in Connecticut, that would be big news.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo raises the question, “Is the Church Corrupt?” You already know the answer. He ends by saying, “Catholics are loyal enough to Jesus and to each other to prevail against the Gates of Hell that now besmirch the institutional church.” Then they are no longer Catholic. Being Catholic means belonging to, and faithfully participating in, the Catholic Church. Even a fraternity insists on fidelity.

Sally herself contributes the other rap. Entitled, “A Catholic ‘War on Women,’” she begins with this startling insight: “The Roman Catholic Church is a hierarchical institution if there ever was one.” Perhaps she knows of an institution that is flat. And is she not the hierarchical leader of her blog post? Then she accuses the Vatican of “condemning nuns, including those among the 55,000 members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).” But the Vatican condemned no one and only 3% of nuns belong to the LCWR. She also says the nuns were punished for supporting ObamaCare. As I pointed out earlier today, this is another sham: the reform initiative began before Obama even became president.

Get it straight: There is not a single media outlet in the nation, or university, that deals so gently with dissent as does the Catholic Church.

Contact: onfaith@washingtonpost.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Critics of Vatican efforts to reform the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) have their talking points down so well that everyone now just assumes that the reform initiative was triggered by concerns over these nuns pushing for ObamaCare. All of them are wrong, and it is not a matter of opinion.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) legislation wasn’t introduced in the House until September 17, 2009. The decision to undertake a doctrinal assessment of the LCWR was announced on April 8, 2008, while George W. Bush was president. In other words, the narrative about “payback” is simply faulty: the timeline undercuts the critics’ argument.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the way some are reacting to the Vatican’s decision to reform the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR):

Over the years, I have met many nuns who have been distraught over the way some in their ranks have lost their way. Now that the Vatican is seeking reforms, these nuns feel vindicated. That is why it is disturbing to read the way some of the Vatican’s critics are trying to defend the indefensible. Keep in mind that only 3% of the 55,000 nuns in the U.S. actually belong to the LCWR, though one would never know this by reading the secular press. But facts don’t matter to those gone loopy.

Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe wants to know why the pope doesn’t “crack down on protectors of pedophile priests” instead of nuns. But there is nothing to crack down about. As the latest report on priestly sexual abuse shows, no credible accusations were made in 2011 against 99.98% of the priests. Besides, the problem has been homosexuality, not pedophilia (less than 5% of the old cases dealt with pedophilia).

Monica Yant Kinney in the Philadelphia Inquirer says the Vatican “slammed nuns for devoting their lives to educating the poor, treating the sick, and feeding the ravenous.” That she still has her job after writing such drivel is the real story here.

Melinda Henneberger of the Washington Post says the LCWR got in trouble for supporting ObamaCare. A little research would have disclosed that legitimate concerns about this group extend back many years, having nothing to do with ObamaCare.

Pat Buchanan was fired from MSNBC because his bosses didn’t like a book he wrote. By contrast, the Vatican doesn’t fire anyone for breaking ranks. So tell me which of these two organizations really can’t tolerate dissent? One more thing: we await a column by these voyeurs on the sex segregation that is commonplace in Orthodox Judaism and Islam.

On April 3, Catholic News Service published a story on an internal memo from the bishops on ObamaCare. Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on it today:

The more the bishops study this issue, the more resolved they are in opposing ObamaCare. At the heart of the bishops’ objections is the contrived and unjust way the Obama administration defines a religious organization; it grants an exemption only to what it deems is a religious entity. In point of fact, it is the ACLU that is really dictating to Catholics what passes as a religious institution.

In 2000, the California Contraceptive Equity Law was passed. In it there is a provision defining what qualifies as a religious employer, and it was written by the ACLU. Besides noting that the institution must be a non-profit, the exact qualifying language is as follows:

• “The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity”
• “The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity”
• “The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity”

The Health and Human Services edict forcing Catholic institutions to provide for abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance coverage also allows an exemption for groups it deems religious. Besides noting the non-profit status, the exact qualifying language is as follows:

• “Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose”
• “Primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets”
• “Primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets”

Having written a Ph.D. dissertation and two books on the ACLU, I can say unequivocally that the ACLU has long been an enemy of religious liberty. Indeed, when it was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin (whom I interviewed in 1978), it listed all the provisions of the First Amendment among its first ten goals. Not among them was religious liberty. And these are the same folks that Obama turns to in his war on Catholics.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on today’s Senate vote to table the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act”:

The 51-48 vote to table an amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt that would guarantee rights of conscience for the employees of religious institutions does not end the debate.

There is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry that would also secure conscience rights for people of faith, and it has already garnered a near-majority of House members. Also available as a possible remedy are the rights encoded in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the ObamaCare legislation later this month; a decision is expected in late spring.

The Obama administration has chosen to shut out the Catholic voice (save for the dissidents). Consider the following:

• Archbishop William Lori has said that there was no discussion between administration officials and the bishops prior to the decisions of January 20 and February 10 that effectively mandated Catholic institutions to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization.

• Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius has admitted under questioning that the Justice Department was never asked to consider the religious-rights implications of her draconian directive.

• Dr. Linda Rosenstock, who served on a committee of the Institute of Medicine that was empowered to study the HHS mandate, said on Tuesday that at no time did anyone on the committee ever weigh the issue of religious rights.

Obama does not want to dialogue—he wants to dictate. Game on.