24
Gulf Pine Catholic
•
June 3, 2016
Bishop Morin visits Our Lady of Perpetual Help
Parish in Lumberton
Bishop Roger Morin celebrated Mass at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish in Lumberton on May 22. At left, from l-r, are Deacon Harold Gaule, Bishop Morin
and OLPH pastor Father Fintan Kilmurray. At right, the children of the parish sang
“This Little Light of Mine”
for the bishop, who joined the children in song.
The children also presented the bishop with the gift of a hummingbird feeder on behalf of the parish.
Photos/Terry Dickson
Court remands two HHS challenges to lower courts ‘in
light of Zubik’
BY CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The U.S. Supreme Court
in orders issued May 23 remanded two Catholic enti-
ties’ legal challenges to the federal contraceptive man-
date back to the lower courts.
The high court granted a petition for a writ of certio-
rari for two plaintiffs -- the Catholic Health Care Sys-
tem, 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 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and 6th U.S. Court
of Appeals.
The orders follow the court’s unanimous decision
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 Afford-
able Care Act’s contraceptive requirement for employ-
ers.
The consolidated group of cases is named for Bish-
op David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh, one of the plaintiffs.
“Burwell” in the case name is for Sylvia Mathews Bur-
well, 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 contracep-
tive coverage’ going forward.”
But, the court also said, the “government
may not impose taxes or penalties on petition-
ers for failure” to provide notice to the govern-
ment stating their objection to the coverage.
The court heard oral arguments in Zubik
v. Burwell March 23. Then six days later, it
issued an unusual order seeking additional
briefs from the plaintiffs and the federal gov-
ernment about how and if contraceptive in-
surance coverage could be obtained by em-
ployees through their insurance companies
without directly involving religious employ-
ers 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 cover-
age be provided through an alternative health care plan
without involving the religious employers. The govern-
ment 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 pos-
sibility 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 mer-
its of the cases that are challenging aspects of the fed-
eral 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 sub-
stantial 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 accommo-
dates 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 suit-
able” 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 po-
tential concern is uncertain, as is the necessity of this
court’s involvement at this point to resolve them.”
