NY Times Scolds Catholics, Calls HHS Mandate Lawsuits a “Stunt”

Cardinal Newman Society ^ | May 29, 2012 | Matthew Archbold

[NYer]

The New York Times has been unsympathetic to Catholic protests against the HHS mandate, so it was not surprising that the Times editorial board had nothing but nasty things to say about the lawsuits that recently were filed against HHS by 43 Catholic plaintiffs in a Sunday editorial.

Thirteen Roman Catholic dioceses and some Catholic-related groups scattered lawsuits across a dozen federal courts last week claiming that President Obama was violating their religious freedom by including contraceptives in basic health care coverage for female employees. It was a dramatic stunt, full of indignation but built on air.

Building on mixed metaphors, the Times scolded Catholic institutions, telling them that the ”First Amendment is not a license for religious entities to impose their dogma on society through the law.” The editorial points out that most people don’t agree with the Church teaching on contraception, as if Church institutions loyal to the Church must therefore forfeit the right to be faithful.

Marc DeGirolami, an assistant law professor at Saint John’s University, is on record saying that he thinks the recent lawsuits have merit.

“I think the odds are pretty good for the plaintiffs here,” DeGirolami told The Hill newspaper. “Even if one concedes that the state has a ‘compelling interest’ in ensuring that all women have free access to contraception there are many, many less restrictive means of achieving that interest.”

DeGirolami called the Times editorial “silly and uninformed” at the Mirror of Justice blog:

There are arguments to be made in defense of the mandate. Surely the government will make them in court. But this editorial neither makes nor even references any of them. What an embarrassment.

[NYer]

The NYT has lost many readers. Slamming the Catholic Church is not going to increase their revenues.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

We’ll see how much of a stunt it is on November 6th.

[RansomOttawa]

Building on mixed metaphors, the Times scolded Catholic institutions, telling them that the ”First Amendment is not a license for religious entities to impose their dogma on society through the law.” The editorial points out that most people don’t agree with the Church teaching on contraception, as if Church institutions loyal to the Church must therefore forfeit the right to be faithful.

These nitwits really don't get it, do they?

It's not about religious entities imposing their dogma on society through the law. It's about government imposing its dogma on the church through the law.

Whether anyone agrees with Roman Catholic teaching on contraception really isn't the point, either. The Roman Catholics do. Why should they be compelled to violate their conscience? What part of "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" gives these legal eagles trouble?

[Mrs. Don-o]

resource

[SuziQ]

But I’m sure they call the lawsuits by a few homosexuals in IL, demanding that they be allowed to ‘marry’, a bold stroke for freedom.