Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Why would government make Little Sisters of the Poor an enemy?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 10, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    The Little Sisters of the Poor isn't just a little group of nuns standing up to the "big bad government." It's a fairly decent sized business with approximately 30 homes/residences located across the United States and outside the country. Each home/residence includes a "dedicated team of staff members" (to quote the Little Sisters' website). That makes them a pretty decend sized employer too.

    This raises an interesting question in my mind -- why should the Little Sisters be able to deny their workers basic preventative health care. I understand them not wanting to have to fund something that goes against their religion, but all they have to do to keep any of their funds from funding contraception is to do what numerous other religious organizations do -- sign a document establishing their qualification for a waiver.

    Their "stand" isn't about religious freedom. It's about their attempt to impose their theology on all their workers, whether or not the workers are Catholic. That is NOT right, and supporting them is NOT supporting religious freedom. Just the opposite, in fact.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    While these nuns have every right to take upon themselves the multitude of restrictions their particular religion wishes to impose upon people, they have no right to impose these restrictions on other people.

    In other words, if birth control is going to be a something that all working American women are going to get, these nuns don't hare a right to say to those women who work for them ...

    Birth control is against MY religion, therefore YOU can't have birth control.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    Geez Ultra Bob, your response on page one is unusually cynical and conspiratorial.

    The financials of the Sisters are neither your business nor are they my business. Just like the financials of the LDS Church are neither your business nor my business.

    Bottom line is, they shouldn't have to offer insurance that conflicts with their church's beliefs.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 2, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    This is just one of the many things wrong with Obama care. I for one don't need the contraception mandate, I don't need maternaty care either. I'm middle aged and so is my wife so that type of coverage is useless to us and we are paying for it needlessly and I don't want to pay for yours.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Feb. 1, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    Boy did I get everything wrong! For all my life, I thought we had rules, but now I can see that there are no rules. Now I can see that everyone has the right to change the rules however and how often they want.

    I can hardly wait until tomorrow when some of the boys gather around the TV to watch the Super Bowl. I can hardly wait to see all of those referees throwing flags! I can hardly wait to see the yelling when they disagree with each other! I can hardly wait until the game breaks out into a free-for-all because nobody believes in rules.

    You go get 'em Mr. President. You just toss away that pesky old Constitution and make up the rules as you go along. Why shouldn't you have the right to toss The Little Sisters of the Poor under the bus? You have your freedom. Why should anyone care if your freedom to dictate takes away their guaranteed freedoms? After all, this is America where YOU get to tell us what the rules are.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 1, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    Well the President was right about one thing. The right does cling to it's religion and guns. Two sacred things not to be trifled with.

    Basically they believe I can do what I want, when I want, and where I want, when it comes to religion and guns and the constitution says so. Problem is societies can't work like that. Societies are a pooling of different beliefs, dreams, and sharing of risks.

    It's the very reason the interpretation of the constitution has broaden over time, because society has broadened.

    The President went to great lengths in this case to accommodate the beliefs of the Little Sisters. Now it's there turn as participants in society to take that hand and drop the extreme view that any association, how remote is sin.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 1, 2014 6:08 a.m.

    The Constitution was ratified in 1788, about 225 years ago. Thirteen years later the 1st Amendment was under attack when Jefferson served as President. Nothing much has changed. Posters still do what Jefferson did, twist and turn the words to put a void between government and God. They reverse the meaning of words, if it suits their purposes. They use a modern definition of "establishment" that was first concocted by Jefferson, and try to tell us that "establishment" has always been defined that way. I suppose they're busy composing a new dictionary that also contains their definition of the word "marriage". Before long they will tell us the "marriage" has always been accepted as same-sex coupling.

    Obama ignores the Constitution. Using Jefferson's rational, Obama can twist and turn the words to suit the agenda of the day. The difference is that Obama would force "The Little Sisters of the Poor" to participate in preventing life from beginning. No other President in history has forced an establishment of religion to prevent the spirit children of our Creator from being conceived.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:00 p.m.

    happy2: Sorry, I have no time. Like all good 'liberals', I put in a lot of time at work. But rest assured, i lean right, and afghanistan was stupid from before day 1. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis.
    Back to work; I'll get this unit up and running tonight no matter how long it takes.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:54 p.m.

    "The ruling is an obvious blow to the administration and its apparent belief that it can push around religious organizations and believers as it tries to force its own agenda as to what constitutes responsible health care."

    Your remark is a mite over the top. Contraceptives are a necessary part of many women's health care, not always for contraceptive purposes. But what if contraception is the intent - that is still women's health, big time.

    It seems to me that if an organization, I don't care what type, has employees it needs to provide health insurance which matches their employees' health care needs.

    I believe the LDS Church which owns this paper has not taken a position against contraceptives. Am I right? So what's the problem?

    Consider another situation. Scientology disagrees with mainstream psychiatry. If they decided that they would not allow insurance for psychiatric care for their empoyees, would you justify them on the basis of religious liberty? Does religious liberty trump all other liberties? I so no. You say yes apparently. Back to feudal Europe!

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 6:33 p.m.

    Sorry, Mike "Establishment" means, and has always meant, among other definitions "act of establishing." Therefore "an establishment" means, and has always meant, among other definitions "an act of establishing." Amendment 1 to the US Constitutions prohibits, among other things, the government doing anything to establish religion. Your attempt at playing word games doesn't work, and doesn't negate what the Constitution REALLY says and means. I, again, invite you to really study the Constitution with a competent instructor. You'd learn a lot.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    I wish that I could take all these liberals who seem so cavalier about religion and place them in Russia around 1917 for a few years and then ask them again how they feel about whether the influence of religion is worth supporting. But, alas, it is a foolish wish. Progressives are the first to tear at the foundations of very things that allow them to speak and act in the first place. Many in Germany in the mid thirties learned of the value of God's influence as well, much too late! Hopefully, history won't be repeated here in America, if enough are willing to stand up for Him

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    Thank You glendenbg for a very informative comment and your are correct.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    The premise of this article is wrong. No one has made this order of nuns the enemy, nor is the administration the enemy.

    When women have access to reliable and affordable birth control, it improves the quality of life for women and their children.

    Contraception is used by 99% of American women - it's use cuts across economic, social, religious and racial lines.

    Before the Affordable Care Act passed, 28 states mandated insurance plans covered birth control. Many of those mandates did not include religious exemptions and businesses and religious organizations complied with them without any fuss.

    In light of the above, it's fair to ask if opposition to contraception and the contraception mandate even makes sense.

    Many the religious arguments against contraception are factually wrong. Pregnancy doesn't occur when an egg is fertilized - pregnancy occurs when it implants into the uterine wall. Access to contraception does not increase incident of sexual behavior, however access to contraception decreases the rate of unplanned pregnancies which reduces the incidents of abortion.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    The "Little Sisters of the Poor" have the same attitude towards life as does their leader, Jesus Christ. He warned us about the consequences of offending a "little one". He told us of the sanctity of life. He warned us of the consequences if we harmed the innocent.

    The "Little Sisters of the Poor" believe in Christ's doctrine. They serve Him. They stand with Him. They hold His words in their hearts. They know that no government on this entire earth can stand against the Lord.

    The fact that so many disagree with them shows the true state of society. Maybe 55,000,000 abortions were not nearly enough to prove that any unborn baby can be destroyed at any time by anyone. Maybe that same attitude extends to those who would deny life while they engage in the relations that produce children.

    Our Creator gave us a body to use, not for our purposes, but for His purposes. Stopping conception and aborting the unborn are not part of His purposes. The "Little Sisters of the Poor" understand that concept. It seems that some mock our Creator.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "That's simply not true. Someone needs to do a little studying up on the regime's proposal. "

    They would find is that alternative funding to the insurance companies would be paying for it, not the LSotP money. The issue here really is fungible assets where money is collecting from several sources and spending to several things.

    Let's try different examples. Republicans want to cut off all funding to Planned Parenthood. Democrats argue that funding for abortions is already illegal so there is no funding to Planned Parenthood for abortion. Republicans are arguing that the assets are fungible and that if Planned Parenthood uses federal money for one thing, that frees up other money to use for abortions.

    Democrats used the same exact fungible asset argument when it came to the Chamber of Commerce spending on elections after they took in money from overseas (use that money for one thing to free up more domestic money for election spending).

    So, similarly, this is using money from LSotP to pay for other things to free up non-LSotP money to spend on birth control.

    Courts generally don't buy the fungible asset argument.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 31, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    @Furry1993,

    If you consider "an establishment" as that phrase was used at the time that the Constitution was written, you would realize that the founders understood English, just as your 7th grade English teacher understands English. It did not mean "the establishment". It meant "an establishment". Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. He wrote his "separation" letter 13 years after the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the Land. Finding a dictionary that agrees with your interpretation is just like shopping for a judge.
    ---

    On to more serious matters: We all understand the meaning of the word, "no". We know that a sign that says, "no trespassing", means that we cannot enter that property. We know that a "stop sign" means that we cannot proceed until we have fully stopped. We know that if a man or woman says "no" when sexual advances occur, that the offending person will spend a long time in jail for disregarding the word, "no".

    Obama does not understand the meaning of the word, "no". He thinks that it applies only to others.

    The Constitution disagrees with him.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 31, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    "The only thing distinguishing this reckless, feckless, liberal vote-buying scheme from soviet-style re-education gulags is the barbed wire."

    This kind of overstatement weakens your arguments and makes it hard to take seriously. It's more than a little offensive to suggest that someone who had to live through the gulags only suffered a little bit more than someone who is forced to ALLOW the insurance coverage they already provide to cover contraception.

    The Obama Administration didn't make these nuns public enemies. They are being propped up by the opponents of the health care bill because they are sympathetic. I'm simply not buying that having contraception coverage on an insurance plan is a violation of religious conviction. If the argument is that by making it available, they are spreading its evil, aren't they doing the same thing by paying their employees? After all, they are facilitating the use of contraceptives in that way.

    If Hobby Lobby and the Sisters win, it sets a dangerous legal precedent of employers being able to impose religion on their followers. Using a similar rhetorical flourish as yours, this makes use mere baby steps from Sharia Law.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    Vanceone

    IMO

    People who refuse to abide by American civil law, regardless of the reason, are enemies of the American society and usually referred to as criminals.

    Traditionally we allow people as individuals to wear clothing and jewelry in the public square. Signs and other broadcasting of private business is generally prohibited in the public square. People may wear clothing and jewelry advertising of their private business and religion through out the public square. Most Christian building will have a cross on top. LDS uses a spire.

    You are wrong:

    The accepted notion of why people wanted to come to America was to escape from the religious oppression of a singular religious government.

    Actually I said business operations should not have religious freedom. I am a supporter of religious freedom for individuals but not for organizations. In that I know I am in conflict with the First Amendment.

    All of the rights and freedoms exist only because we have a government strong enough to enforce those rights and freedoms. Everything you experience as an American is regulated, controlled and provided by the social contract of the United States of America

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Jan. 31, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    I'm so grateful for those of you who are sticking up for the "Little Sisters". Maybe some of the others should read a little more and understand what the paper they are trying to be forced to sign really does.
    BTW, at the dem conference many, many were booing and did not want the name of deity in their by laws. Some others were boing as was said, but I took from it that the big majority did not want it in. That & abortion & birth control. Wow! The Lord must be so pleased.
    Bambi

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    Wow. So UltraBob is openly calling for the removal of the freedom of religion from the US. You are openly stating that people do NOT have the right to worship in this country. What a leftist view! What's the punishment for worshipping God, UltraBob? What should it be? Fine? Jail? Execution?

    All of those are previous leftist punishments. Which do you prefer?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 31, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    Filling out a form to claim an exemption is something we all do on our taxes all the time. It is not an issue of morality or conscience in any universe I know about. What's the big whoop that the Order can't do the same thing?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    Re: "Contraception coverage would not come from the funding paid for by the nuns."

    That's simply not true. Someone needs to do a little studying up on the regime's proposal. Yeah, it's hard for all of us to believe that liberals would overreach this far, but it's nonetheless true.

    The regime's "compromise" merely places a middleman between the nuns and the contraceptive delivery man. Nothing more.

    Bottom line -- the regime's plan is that nuns will be made public enemies, and brutishly forced to violate their religious beliefs by nameless, faceless, motherless government bureaucrats.

    The regime intends to force them to become financiers of contraception.

    The only thing distinguishing this reckless, feckless, liberal vote-buying scheme from soviet-style re-education gulags is the barbed wire.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

    If the interpretation of this part of the First Amendment is ambiguous in its meaning, it should be struck down and removed from our Constitution. It is unlikely that the founding fathers intended it to have more than one meaning.

    My problem with the First Amendment is that nowhere does it specifically extend freedom of religion to individuals. Whether you take "an establishment of religion" to be brick and mortar or a government action, the part prohibiting the free exercise thereof does not refer to people. The word "thereof" in my language is used to refer back to the first part of the statement.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    Why are the "Little Sisters of the Poor" ENEMIES of health care, and the sick.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    @Vanceone
    "Remember, the Democratic convention, 2012. They booed the mere mention of God; booed lustily."

    They were booing Democratic leadership for not allowing a vote to be counted when it was definitely unclear what the result of the voice vote was.

    "I find it more offensive and "war on women" to believe as the liberals do: that women are incapable of finding birth control themselves and their employer must be forced to provide it, because their female employees are incapable of doing otherwise. "

    You could say the same about literally every other thing insurance covers.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    Really, UltraBob? The Little Sisters of the Poor, a bunch of nuns, are now an enemy of the American People?
    We "allow" them to choose what clothes they wear? We "allow" them to build buildings? We allow them to --gasp!-- maybe be charitable, since that is what they do?

    How.... generous of you. Allowing someone to actually be different. And you are wrong--your post is exactly what people fled to America to get away from. An overbearing government that thinks it is being generous in allowing you to worship God.
    I especially like how you just casually say people shouldn't have religious freedom in economic activity. And we all know how the government shoving their tentacles into all activity, since all activity has an economic impact. Democrats claimed that not buying insurance was economic activity, so basically you are saying that there should be no religious freedom. If not, please explain what freedoms our government should be so generous and permit us to have. Because we all know that Government is the source of all freedoms, right?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Perhaps if we were given a bit more information about the financials of the Little Sisters of the Poor, we could understand why they have become an enemy of the American people. Charity in America has devolved into a business operation. And business operations should not have religious freedom in their service to the public.

    The business operations of the largest financial organization in the world, as with other religious organizations, should not be allowed to use economic force to impose their beliefs on others.

    Traditionally America has regarded business as being a public service to all Americans. And over time we have use the power of our government to enforce that policy. We have given religious organizations great leeway in the advertising of their beliefs. The clothes they wear, the external nature of their buildings, and in some cases even allowing religious practices done in the public square.

    If religious forces are able to gain control over our government, America will devolve into that same world that the first Americans were fleeing. Giving religion the ability to flout American civil law is a giant step in that direction.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    "Requiring religious people to associate themselves, even from a distance, with something that violates their conscience inhibits their right to freely exercise religion."

    Is this really an argument Mormons want to follow to it's logical conclusion?

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    "Can a Christian Scientist declare they won't pay for any medical expenses, since they don't believe in medicine?" The answer is simple: Yes.

    Since when do we force employers to provide health care on penalty of governmental punishment? Plenty of jobs I've had don't offer any health care at all. And Obamacare is going to vastly increase those numbers. Why should Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to subsidize someone else's health care? Why can't those poor, poor women buy their own contraceptives? Is there some rule saying that your employer buys your condoms or you don't get any? The "Pill" is only available to people with a health care plan?
    I find it more offensive and "war on women" to believe as the liberals do: that women are incapable of finding birth control themselves and their employer must be forced to provide it, because their female employees are incapable of doing otherwise.
    Why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's birth control?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "The "exemption" requires the nuns, under penalty of prosecution, to fork over association funds to an insurance company, so it will provide contraception benefits"

    Contraception coverage would not come from the funding paid for by the nuns.

    "only a tiny baby step away from Marxist-Leninist re-education camps."

    Someone woke up on the overdramtic side of the bed this morning...

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    How one could construe prayer as an act to establish a religion is not only ridiculous, but shows how far some are willing to go to remove God from any forum except in a cloistered outhouse atop mount olympus. If this isn't a Karl Marx dream argument, I don't know what is! How any American could diverge so far from Constitutional understanding while spitting in God's face at the same time is beyond me.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    It's just part and parcel of the left and their full scale assault on Christianity. Muslims don't have to comply with Obamacare, but Obama is forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to.
    That's just one front. Another is gay rights, where the doctrine being pushed is that if you are Christian, you have to leave your religion inside the church and cannot use it in business. The same concept--Christianity is being relegated to the old status of pornography--you can only do it in the privacy of your own home or in that seedy place down the road, but it can't be brought out otherwise.

    Remember, the Democratic convention, 2012. They booed the mere mention of God; booed lustily. Leftists, judging by their supporters and actions, have fully bought into Joseph Stalin's views on Christianity.

    No, they say, you can practice your religion. Just as long as its hidden and of no consequence, and you do what we tell you when we tell you, we don't care what you believe--for the moment.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    First of all, contraception is used for a bevy of reasons beyond merely preventing pregnancy. Secondly, no one in the government is making any Catholic person take contraception, thereby violating their fundamental religious rights. The Government is not intervening in their actual practice. Also, there is no protection that the government will not intervene in religious practice if it goes against other laws. That is why you can't merely become a Rastafarian and legally smoke pot.

    Another overlooked aspect is that many of the employees of these "poor old ladies" are not Catholic. They are portrayed as a humble little group, but in fact, they run nursing homes with many female employees whose doctors may prescribe birth control for ovarian cysts or other health issues. What they are doing is not only trying to not provide the contraception, but by challenging the exemption created for them, they are actively trying to obstruct their employees from accessing medical care and force their own religion on them. If Hobby Lobby wins, the implications are huge. Can a Christian Scientist declare they won't pay for any medical expenses, since they don't believe in medicine?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    Re: "The Sisters are already exempt from the contraceptive mandate. All they have to do is fill out a form to claim the exemption."

    Disingenuous liberal sophistry.

    The "exemption" requires the nuns, under penalty of prosecution, to fork over association funds to an insurance company, so it will provide contraception benefits. As if that somehow means the nuns are not being forced, by the heavy boot of government on their necks, to violate their conscience.

    The regime offers this up as its disingenuous fig leaf, suggesting it can somehow justify its illegal and immoral shredding of the Constitution. It's telling that liberal regime supporters won't admit this autocratic decree is only a tiny baby step away from Marxist-Leninist re-education camps.

    And, it's clear the regime has come to expect dissenting Americans, not only to abandon and violate their religious beliefs, but to embrace the transparent dishonesty that characterizes liberals, in general, and this regime, in particular, as well.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    According to the dictionarty, "an establishment" does not only mean an edifice or an organizaiton. It also means "an act of establishing." Therefore, when the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." its meaning includes "Congress shall make no law respecting an act establishing a religion." This restriction was extended to actions by state and local governments by the 14th Amendment. Prayer in school, etc., are acts by government respecting an act establishing one religion as being the "official" religion of the government and are, therefore, unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. yes words are important -- that's why it is important not to try to construe them to only support one position/action when the words actually mean more.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    Liberals have no problem with the free exercise of religion as long as it is confined to Sunday and is within the four walls of a church. Other than that, they think thy have a right to dictate what the free exercise of religion will be. These sweet women are NOT going to sign a form that consents to something they find abhorrent and against their conscience.

    I hope this attempt by the Obama Administration to oppress people of conscience is stopped cold by the Supremes and that it is the final straw that breaks the back of this total disaster known as Obamacare.

    You never know. We may be able to save our country yet.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    Hutterite

    I curious about something you said. You said you did not want to pay for a war in Afghanistan. Was that always the case? Or just now after 10 years? Few people in the world, much less here in the U.S. did not want the United States to mount some kind of attack against the perpetrators of 911. Are you one of them? I only ask because I frequently read your posts, and do wonder how far to the political left you lean.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    Churches have to sign forms to get tax exempt status. It's not a new concept.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    Hutterite: The reason there should be no single payer system is simple. The Constitution doesn't allow it. It is a simple document for those who believe in simplicity. Judges, however, that want to be rulers instead of servants, and worse yet, citizens who want to be ruled, rather than to rule, are an existential threat to its simplicity and the liberty of those of us who believe in liberty. The United States can reclaim its position as the leader of the free world in how wealth is created, as well as how rights are protected, including the rights of the sisters of the poor, or it will find itself just another third world country! I doubt very much whether our president even considers America as such and his polices have done nothing but destroy capitalism, divide our nation, and pit the unalienable rights of man as given by God against the corrupt power brokers in Washington! In either case, it isn't going to end well for one or the other. I doubt it will be the former.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 31, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    Sorry, Roland, but you and I disagree on this point.

    "All they have to do is fill out a form to claim the exemption." Why? The Government has no authority to change the doctrine of an establishment of religion. It has no right to require an establishment of religion to "sign a form" to opt out of an illegal mandate.

    That is the point that I was trying to make earlier today. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," How can anyone, including the President, require an establishment of religion of sign a form to exempt itself from a law made by Congress that infringes the rights of a Church?

    When we, the citizens, sit back and allow any President to tell us what the Constitution says, as he tries to enforce a law that violates the Constitution, then shame on us for not protecting OUR RIGHTS. Government does not give us rights. We were endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, including freedom from government interference in matters of religion.

    We need to support the Little Sisters.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    When you live in a society you get the whole enchilada. And that enchilada includes some sides not everyone likes. I didn't want to pay for a war in afghanistan, or Iraq. I think churches getting tax breaks is a scam. It goes against my conscience. But, I like a lot of things I get from government, too, and some compromise is always necessary to get by in this world. So, rather than paint these outfits as victims, maybe back the idea of single payer health care, so employers and nuns aren't even part of the health care delivery process, and health care choices are made by people and physicians.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    This editorial is highly misleading, either you don't know what the case is about, or you are simply obfuscating. The Sisters are already exempt from the contraceptive mandate. All they have to do is fill out a form to claim the exemption. Their suit claims that making them fill out a form violates their religious freedom. The Supreme Court ruled that while the case was pending, they did not have to fill out the form, but they still had to convey all the information to the government that the form asked for.

    In other words, the Supreme Court punted until the district court issues a decision.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards and procuradorfiscal:

    Well said, both of you. Thanks for taking a stand for common sense and for exposing some of the techniques deployed by the liberal extremists.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Jan. 31, 2014 5:30 a.m.

    Why should the government bully these Sisters? Because it can!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 4:40 a.m.

    Re: "Why would government make Little Sisters of the Poor an enemy?"

    Why? Because they're in the way of Obama's attempts to "fundamentally transform" America into his brave-new-world vision of a radical, autocratic, secularist, socialist, nanny state.

    There's no personal animus. They just got in the way. So, now they're enemies of the state.

    It'll be interesting to see what liberal character assassination technique is applied to them as the statist propaganda juggernaut rolls on. That's the standard liberal technique.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 31, 2014 3:20 a.m.

    The editorial said: "The First Amendment grants clear protections for the free exercise of religion, as well as against government attempts to establish a religion."

    The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

    There is no "to establish a religion" in the 1st Amendment. Why does that make a difference? It makes a difference because the Catholic Church is "an establishment of religion". It already exists. It is fully protected from government meddling with its doctrine by the fact that it is an established religion. Contraception is part of the Catholic Church's doctrine. If contraception is part of the Catholic Church's doctrine, Congress can make no law respecting contraception vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.

    Some would call that nit-picking, but words matter. People get riled when they think that the Constitution says something that it clearly does not say. Too many people think that we can't have prayer in schools because there is a separation of Church and State. Those words are not in the Constitution. Prayer is allowed. Prayer is free speech.