Follow usTwitterFacebook

Latest

03 Aug 2016 Q&A No comments

Is it permissible to have nocturnal adoration from the night of Holy Thursday into the morning of Good Friday?

Full Question Is it permissible to have nocturnal adoration from the night of Holy Thursday into the morning of Good Friday? Answer After the Mass …

Read more

12 Sep 2014 Vatican No comments

Vatican confirms papal trip to Turkey in November

Vatican City, Sep 12, 2014 / 09:30 am .- A statement released by the Vatican has confirmed that Pope Francis will visit Turkey in November, where he is expected…

Read more

24 Dec 2014 Q&A No comments

Did John the Baptist and Jesus contradict each other?

Full Question In John 1:6–8 and John 1:19–28, John the Baptist denies he is Elijah. Yet in Matthew 17:9–13, Jesus implies that he was. Isn't this a contrad…

Read more

22 Oct 2016 News Comments (2)

Some progressives tried to divide the Church, says head of organisation ‘created’ by Clinton aide

Christopher Hale said many people were involved in founding CACG, but its only current aim is 'to promote the social teaching of the Church' The director of Ca…

Read more

03 Nov 2015 News Vatican Comments (3)

Maternity-Leave right for Women must be protected - Pope Francis

Pope Francis advised Businesses to accommodate the dual vocation that women have been created by God to serve, which are their normal work and their motherhood …

Read more

03 Jul 2016 Articles No comments

The Role of Deacons: Then and Now

While priestly ordinations in the United States have decreased over the past three decades, there’s one ministerial order that’s seen a steady rise. The permane…

Read more

17 Dec 2016 News No comments

Bible VR gives inside look to the ACTUAL site of Jesus' miraculous birth

Join virtual tour guide Danny Herman, known as "Danny the Digger," as you take a 360-degree look through one of the holiest sites on earth. According to the …

Read more

11 Nov 2015 Europe News No comments

Catholic Philanthropists launches mission to save migrants

Two philanthropists, who founded a charity to rescue migrants drowning at the Mediterranean Sea last year, are to launch a new rescue mission in the Aegean Sea.…

Read more

19 Oct 2015 Middle East - Africa News Vatican No comments

Program announced for papal trip to Africa

The Holy See Press Office has announced the program of Pope Francis’s upcoming apostolic journey to Kenya, Uganda, and the Central African Republic. The Pont…

Read more
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
«
»

US Supreme Court sends HHS mandate cases to lower courts

The court vacated earlier rulings against two Catholic entities’ legal challenges to the federal contraceptive mandate

The US Supreme Court has remanded two Catholic entities’ legal challenges to the federal contraceptive mandate back to the lower courts.

The high court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari for two plaintiffs — the Catholic Health Care System, an umbrella for four Catholic institutions affiliated with the Archdiocese of New York, and the Michigan Catholic Conference.

With its order, the court vacated the early rulings against the two Catholic plaintiffs by, respectively, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals and 6th US Court of Appeals.

The orders follow the court’s unanimous decision on May 16 to send the Zubik v Burwell case back to the lower courts. Zubik is actually a collection of Catholic and other faith-based entities’ challenge of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive requirement for employers.

The consolidated group of cases is named for Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, one of the plaintiffs. “Burwell” in the case name is for Sylvia Mathews Burwell, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

In its new orders, the court said that in both the Catholic Health Care System case and the Michigan Catholic Conference case, the “petitioners have made the government aware of their view that they meet ‘the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds.’”

“Nothing in the Zubik opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, ‘precludes the government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage’ going forward.”

But, the court also said, the “government may not impose taxes or penalties on petitioners for failure” to provide notice to the government stating their objection to the coverage.

The court heard oral arguments in Zubik v Burwell on March 23. Then six days later, it issued an unusual order seeking additional briefs from the plaintiffs and the federal government about how and if contraceptive insurance coverage could be obtained by employees through their insurance companies without directly involving religious employers who object to this coverage.

On April 12, the plaintiffs filed a brief with the court in which they agreed with the proposal that such coverage be provided through an alternative health care plan without involving the religious employers. The government also filed a brief, arguing that it wanted to keep the contraceptive mandate intact, but offered that it would go along with the court’s suggestion despite the possibility that it might not close the door on future legal challenges.

In its May 16 decision, the Supreme Court made clear that it was not expressing an opinion on the merits of the cases that are challenging aspects of the federal government’s health legislation and it also was not ruling on the issue of a potential violation of religious freedom.

Because of the “gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties,” the court stated that religious employers and the government should be “afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.”

The court stressed that this approach is “more suitable” than addressing the refined positions submitted by both sides and added that “although there may still be areas of disagreement between the parties on issues of implementation, the importance of those areas of potential concern is uncertain, as is the necessity of this court’s involvement at this point to resolve them.”









wpsd_autopost:
1

Leave a Reply

  1. most read post
  2. Most Commented
  3. Choose Categories