Redistricting & the HHS Mandate | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Let us not forget that some of the seats lost to moderate Democrats were because the pro-life Susan B. Anthony Fund blatantly lied about health care reform. As for the HHS Mandate, let this issue drop - as no additional Catholic institutions will be required to cover contraception as a result of it (since they already have been covering it since December 2000 if they have outside insurance and similar proposals have already been well litigated with Church losing - twice). There is no substance on either issue, it is all spin because the pro-life cause still has not plan to end abortion that can be called reasonable or realistic. As far as closing Catholic health institutions - they are owned by religious orders, not diocese, so the bishop cannot close them and won't withdraw the name Catholic over an obscure issue of employee health coverage (where the Church doctrine is wrong on anyway).
I suspect that GOTV will get a bit more attention in 2014. Additionally, God will be redistricting a lot of GOP districts in the very near future, as they will be demographically different as older boomers and the last of the greatest generation continues to die.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe courts should dismiss the lawsuits regarding the HHS mandate before they even go to trial. The reason (which I have not heard put forth by any commentators) is that the plaintiffs have (in my opinion) "unclean hands."
With respect to employee benefits, employers are fiduciaries. They are subject to decades of employee benefit law and centuries of common law. Among other oblgations, fiduciaries must avoid any conflict of interest. When the plaintiffs case is based on the idea that they woulc exclude contraceptives because they are personally opposed, they are admitting to a conflict of interest.
Whenever a conflct of interest exists, a fiduciary is expected to step aside in favor of someone free of conflict. The plaintiffs have not done so. They have breached their fiduciary duty, and no court ought to let there case go forward as a result.