Notre Dame refiles its HHS lawsuit

The University of Notre Dame announced yesterday that it would be refiling its lawsuit against the HHS mandate (dismissed last spring) regarding contraceptive health care coverage. University president, Rev. John Jenkins wrote:

The government’s accommodations would require us to forfeit our rights, to facilitate and become entangled in a program inconsistent with Catholic teaching and to create the impression that the university cooperates with and condones activities incompatible with its mission. . . The U.S. government mandate, therefore, requires Notre Dame to do precisely what its sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit — pay for, facilitate access to, and/or become entangled in the provision of objectionable products and services or else incur crippling sanctions.

How sincere those religious beliefs are remains to be seen.


4 thoughts on “Notre Dame refiles its HHS lawsuit

  1. The new legal complaint is different from the previous one in a couple of ways–most disconcertingly, it claims that by treating educational institutions differently than houses of worship, the law violates the university’s religious beliefs by “attempt[ing] to sever Notre Dame from the Church, in violation of Notre Dame’s belief in the unity of the Church.” This raises a question about whether or not the university is attempting to seek to exempt itself from all regulation which applies to educational institutions but not houses of worship, e.g., Title IX.

  2. The move to which you refer, Kathryn, strikes me as an especially bizarre one since Notre Dame (i) knowingly hires folks who are not Catholic– indeed, who openly avow affiliation with other religions and/or no religion; (ii) ND *claims* (i.e. it advertises in Phil Jobs) to abide by the APA’s non-discrimination policy, both of which also “sever” the university from the regulations of the Catholic Church in the same degree/sense.
    For anyone who doesn’t yet know (and you probably do)– Hobby Lobby is also in on this nonsense.

  3. In all honesty, my suspicion is that someone involved wants to challenge the current legal interpretation if the establishment clause (otherwise one would think they’d be more cautious about claiming the university has rights that would all else held equal endanger their federal funding).

Comments are closed.