Notre Dame lawsuit on health law is a huge blow for President Obama -- Damages Obama with Catholic vote, the key one in 2012 election
Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 08:08 AM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- President Obama’s visit to North comes at a critical time for peace process - Hopes that he can help stop slow slide into the dark side
- Boston Irish Immigration Center continues to lie about their role in turning woman in to State Department
- Why no effort to repair damage to Irish Famine memorial in New York nearly one year after? - Car slammed into memorial and ugly plywood and metal barricades still mark the site
- How sports helped defeat the 'No Irish Need Apply' racism in America - Top baseball exec Tim Brosnan tells Irish Sports 50 how Irish served as example
- Sandy scourged Rockaways is on the mend with a little help from community spirit and perseverance
Archives
| Father John Jenkins and President Barack Obama |
The Fighting Irish are putting up the gloves -- and it is against the president who needs their support more than ever this November.
In an election where the Catholic vote is widely seen as the critical swing vote, the Notre Dame move places the most famous Catholic institution in the United States firmly in opposition to the president on his singular policy on health care.
That is big news given that Notre Dame was widely perceived as being in the president’s corner after they invited him to be their commencement speaker in 2009 over the strong objections of local bishops.
Father John Jenkins is widely regarded as the most articulate and skilful Catholic college president in America, so his stance against Obama on this will be widely discussed and analyzed.
The wording of the lawsuit reflects Jenkins mindset. It is a passionate and emotional statement about the right of religious institutions to safeguard their own beliefs when it comes to what they wish to cover when it comes to medical care.
It is not the usual dry legalese stuff of most lawsuits and bears the hallmarks of Jenkin’s style.
Jenkins is no creature of the Vatican right-wing orthodoxy like so many American bishops. Therefore his lawsuit is all the more potent among moderate American Catholics.
---------------
Read more:
Barry Manilow dismayed at how his Irish roots were denied
Want to live in a four-star luxury hotel in Ireland for just $128 a month?
---------------
The college writes, “ This lawsuit is about one of America's most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one's religion without government interference. It is not about whether people have a right to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception…. But the right to such services does not authorize the Government to force the University of Notre Dame… to violate its own conscience by making it provide, pay for, and/or facilitate those services to others, contrary to its sincerely held religious beliefs.
“American history and tradition, embodied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, protects religious entities from such overbearing and oppressive governmental action. Notre Dame therefore seeks relief in this Court to protect this most fundamental of American rights.
Jenkins makes clear that, "We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings."
It is very hard to disagree with that statement which could have been made by any religious or political leader since independence.
Jenkins is no rabble rousing bishop out to get the Obama administration on religious grounds. His lawsuit is a passionate dissent from the notion that government can mandate what a Catholic college can and can’t do when it comes to core beliefs.
As Jenkins concludes, "For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringement."
Suddenly the one major Catholic institution which had backed Obama now seems to be backing off on this one major issue.
That cannot be good news for the incumbent president. He needs Catholic votes in key states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and indeed Indiana, where Notre Dame is located. This Notre Dame uprising will come as a major blow.
88 Comments
15 - 88 | See all comments
EphraimKibbey | May 25, 2012, 03:58 PM EDT
@BrianO - That is the way it should work but for most people it doesn't. If one is not a congressman (they have a plethera of health care choices,) an individual is limited to the one or two health care companies that their state has OK'd to sell there. If you get your insurance through your employer, you are further limited to the one company chosen by that employer. In addition, many companies are owned by just a few big corporations. The cleansing action of the free market does not exist for most people buying health insurance. The idea of the federal exchange is to rectify this problem by allowing ALL health care companies to vie for an individual's business as they do for that of the congressmen and women. I would prefer a one payer system but the current administration felt that putting all of the health insurance companies out of business was not a good idea and so they came up with a compromise that returned a free market to what had become a monopoly and placed certain minimums on coverage details.
Report abuse
McNamara31 | May 25, 2012, 09:05 AM EDT
@branagh..So well said.
Report abuse
BrianO | May 24, 2012, 08:39 PM EDT
Insurance is based on numbers, probability, pooled risk, and the law of big numbers. The profit margin on insurance is quite low between 3% and 4%, If a private company doesn't service their customer then they will face competition from another better run company. Of course A large organization can also self insure.
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | May 24, 2012, 06:49 PM EDT
Why have private health companies paying huge boardroom salaries and paying dividends to share holders on the backs of the sick and infirmed.The main aim of these insurance companies is profit not healthcare.
Report abuse
BrianO | May 24, 2012, 04:25 PM EDT
forced choice what a concept, your logic is flawed, If notre dame offers one person insurace they must offer each of their people insurance, the person is not required to use it but has the option. Furthermore if an individual finds an option that is more to their liking, they can choose that one. An institution should not be punished for offering a benefit. Example. A person sends their child to private school, he has the option to send said child to public school but chooses to seek a better option. Only a Tyrant would force choices on people, The end game of the current health care scheme is to bankrupt private insurance and have as many people as possible dependent on the government, it is at that point that only the rich will be able to access the medical care of their choice.
Report abuse
eiriamach | May 24, 2012, 02:50 PM EDT
merefalow, I am in favor of choice. read what I wrote: "Notre Dame['s] ... health insurance plan may not discriminate against women's health care CHOICES." It's Notre Dame's (and the other parties to the lawsuits vs HHS) choice to refuse to obey a just, constitutional law. Federal court will force these autocratic organizations to allow women the same freedom of CHOICE that they themselves have under the US Constitution, Amendment One. That freedom does not include depriving others of their freedom. Only a tyrant would think it could include that.
Report abuse
BrianO | May 24, 2012, 09:21 AM EDT
There already is a mandate. That is why the Supreme court was asked to rule on the Constitutionality of the Law.
Report abuse
jflanagan | May 24, 2012, 09:17 AM EDT
Whether I agree with the Health Care mandates or not, my main concern is that the First Amendment is not thrown out the window. After they get the go ahead to infringe on the freedom of religion, freedom of speech will be next.
If the President can mandate the Insurance companies provide free contraception, abortion, etc. for the religious institutions, why not just mandate it for everyone. That way it's not through the religious entity and the same for all.
Report abuse
branagh | May 24, 2012, 01:23 AM EDT
Wow! If only the Catholic hierarchy had shown the same vigor in seeking legal redress for the child victims of their raping and molesting priests. If only the hierarchy had shown the same passion for open court proceedings to seek redress instead of relying on $$billions payouts to buy silence.
Many Catholic faithful are at the end of their tether with a hierarchy on a lemming march to the cliffedge-schools closing, hospitals shut down,soup kitchens gone - all to pay for the misdeeds of their priests (and bishops and cardinals).
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | May 24, 2012, 12:08 AM EDT
The greatest lie perpetrated by Christians is, that Jesus began a new religion called "Christianity".
Report abuse
EphraimKibbey | May 23, 2012, 10:42 PM EDT
#BrianO - Your 02:45 PM EDT post was attributed to merefalow! When it was the last post on here, it showed up with NO by-line (but it had your wit.) The IC software did that to one of your posts on another thread and when I posted right after you, your post was attributed to me. It made it look like I was carrying on a conversation with myself. Very funny! Do we need to complain to IC's IT guys? Maybe they have an exterminator that can rid them of the bugs. Some of their "Log In" buttons also are dead and I have to search through several articles to fine one that works.
Report abuse
Madeliene | May 23, 2012, 07:27 PM EDT
we can only hope!
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | May 23, 2012, 07:18 PM EDT
Where's my post
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | May 23, 2012, 07:15 PM EDT
Maybe the bishops are now teahadists usurping everyone else's rights to justify their misogynist far right attitudes.The women of America will give the POTUS another four years and the republicans know it but they don't have the guts to fight the extreme evangelical Christians run by a bunch of loonies who are hell bent on destroying what was once the worlds freest nation. 4 MORE YEARS
Report abuse
- President Obama’s visit to North comes at...
- Michelle Obama and daughters trace their...
- Sinn Fein deputy leader speaks out against...
- Body of Irish immigrant tossed in medical...
- Daily Mail unloads on 'drunken young' Paddys...
- Irish kids receive almost $700 in Holy Communio
- Former church spokesman criticised for using...
- Shock as Irish priest praises Prime Minister’s.
- The Irish are known for being friendly to...
- Is Rory McIlroy a spoiled brat and just an...
88 Comments
Report abuse