United Yam

You Never Know

Little Sisters argue contraception mandate case before 3rd Circuit as long fight continues #Catholic Legal counsel for the Little Sisters of the Poor delivered oral arguments to a federal appellate court on July 7 as the Catholic religious society continued its 15-year legal battle over contraception mandates.The dispute goes back to a 2011 federal regulation imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which requires employers to include coverage of contraception in healthcare plans offered to employees, as part of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act.Although the Little Sisters of the Poor already won two Supreme Court cases — which found the federal government must protect the religious freedom of those who object to contraception and that the federal government has the authority to create exemptions — the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are challenging federal exemptions on grounds that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on.A lower court ruled in favor of the two states, against the Little Sisters of the Poor, finding that the federal exemptions are arbitrary and capricious. The sisters filed an appeal, which is being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.Aimee Thomson, who represented the two states, argued that the broad exemptions — which allow both religious and moral objectors to avoid the mandate — are “arbitrary and capricious” and that the exemptions “swept well beyond all religious employers” who first objected to the mandate.Under the rule, employers who have moral or religious objections can opt in to an accommodation in which the federal government subsidizes contraception coverage in their plans. Employers who also have moral or religious objections to the accommodation can sidestep contraception coverage altogether.She told the panel of judges that the exemption exceeds the scope that is required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She said the regulators failed to show that these exemptions were necessary to solve the religious liberty issue and expressed concerns over employers potentially getting exemptions even though their objections are not sincere.Thomson said it’s unclear “how many women have been impacted” by insincere objections, but “expecting female employees” to study policies and litigate an employer’s insincere objections is burdensome.“That is an incredible burden to place on employees and on women,” she said.Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, argued that the federal government sought to “choose a middle ground” that created a mandate but protected religious freedom, based on Supreme Court guidance: “Nothing about that is even close to arbitrary and capricious.”“This law is about the federal government … accommodating religion with its own mandate,” he said.Rienzi said a rule does not become arbitrary and capricious just because the scope is “a hair more than what’s required” under RFRA.The Little Sisters of the Poor are also receiving support from the Department of Justice. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur argued on behalf of the federal government, in favor of the exemptions, saying RFRA does not require the exemptions to be the “bare minimum.”He said HHS chose to “set everything aside and take a fresh look at everything” and decided “an exemption was the most appropriate administrative response” to objections. He said this was adopted “as a policy matter … even if RFRA does not compel it.”McArthur argued there is “no good reason” for someone to insincerely request an exemption because the employer can request the accommodation “at zero cost.” Yet, if the court decides the exemptions are too broad, the court could strike down “one line in the rule” rather than “take down the entire rule,” as the two states have requested.Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor said in a statement after the oral arguments that the states’ lawsuit to eliminate the exemptions is threatening their mission to serve the poor and the elderly.“This is our God-given mission,” she said “For nearly 200 years we have welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes, and with the population of seniors rapidly growing we cannot allow a government lawsuit to stop us from carrying out our mission. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can keep fighting if they want. All we want is to keep serving.”

Little Sisters argue contraception mandate case before 3rd Circuit as long fight continues #Catholic Legal counsel for the Little Sisters of the Poor delivered oral arguments to a federal appellate court on July 7 as the Catholic religious society continued its 15-year legal battle over contraception mandates.The dispute goes back to a 2011 federal regulation imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which requires employers to include coverage of contraception in healthcare plans offered to employees, as part of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act.Although the Little Sisters of the Poor already won two Supreme Court cases — which found the federal government must protect the religious freedom of those who object to contraception and that the federal government has the authority to create exemptions — the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are challenging federal exemptions on grounds that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on.A lower court ruled in favor of the two states, against the Little Sisters of the Poor, finding that the federal exemptions are arbitrary and capricious. The sisters filed an appeal, which is being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.Aimee Thomson, who represented the two states, argued that the broad exemptions — which allow both religious and moral objectors to avoid the mandate — are “arbitrary and capricious” and that the exemptions “swept well beyond all religious employers” who first objected to the mandate.Under the rule, employers who have moral or religious objections can opt in to an accommodation in which the federal government subsidizes contraception coverage in their plans. Employers who also have moral or religious objections to the accommodation can sidestep contraception coverage altogether.She told the panel of judges that the exemption exceeds the scope that is required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She said the regulators failed to show that these exemptions were necessary to solve the religious liberty issue and expressed concerns over employers potentially getting exemptions even though their objections are not sincere.Thomson said it’s unclear “how many women have been impacted” by insincere objections, but “expecting female employees” to study policies and litigate an employer’s insincere objections is burdensome.“That is an incredible burden to place on employees and on women,” she said.Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, argued that the federal government sought to “choose a middle ground” that created a mandate but protected religious freedom, based on Supreme Court guidance: “Nothing about that is even close to arbitrary and capricious.”“This law is about the federal government … accommodating religion with its own mandate,” he said.Rienzi said a rule does not become arbitrary and capricious just because the scope is “a hair more than what’s required” under RFRA.The Little Sisters of the Poor are also receiving support from the Department of Justice. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur argued on behalf of the federal government, in favor of the exemptions, saying RFRA does not require the exemptions to be the “bare minimum.”He said HHS chose to “set everything aside and take a fresh look at everything” and decided “an exemption was the most appropriate administrative response” to objections. He said this was adopted “as a policy matter … even if RFRA does not compel it.”McArthur argued there is “no good reason” for someone to insincerely request an exemption because the employer can request the accommodation “at zero cost.” Yet, if the court decides the exemptions are too broad, the court could strike down “one line in the rule” rather than “take down the entire rule,” as the two states have requested.Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor said in a statement after the oral arguments that the states’ lawsuit to eliminate the exemptions is threatening their mission to serve the poor and the elderly.“This is our God-given mission,” she said “For nearly 200 years we have welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes, and with the population of seniors rapidly growing we cannot allow a government lawsuit to stop us from carrying out our mission. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can keep fighting if they want. All we want is to keep serving.”

unitedyam July 7, 2026July 8, 2026

The dispute stems from a 2011 federal rule requiring employers to include contraception coverage in employee health plans under the Affordable Care Act.

Sen. Hawley says MLB admits error in warning Giants players over Bible verses #Catholic Major League Baseball (MLB) will not punish the three San Francisco Giants players who wrote Bible verses on their caps during the team’s gay pride celebrations and blamed the incident on poor communication from the franchise, according to Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri.Hawley posted a letter on X, which he said he received from MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred after the senator accused the league of discrimination and the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation into the matter.The incident stemmed from the Giants’ June 12 “Pride Night,” in which most players wore caps that infused a gay pride rainbow into the team logo. Three players inscribed Bible verses on the caps, with one referencing Genesis 9:12-16, in which God tells Noah the rainbow is “the sign of the covenant that I am making between me and you and every living creature with you for all ages to come” and promises to never flood the entire Earth again.After the game, the Giants apologized for the players causing “pain and anger to many in the LGBTQ+ community” and the MLB issued warnings, which Manfred said was simply enforcing its content-neutral prohibition on writing messages on uniforms.In the letter Hawley posted, Manfred said players cannot be forced to wear the pride-inspired uniform, but blamed the Giants for not properly communicating to players that it is optional. He said “the Giants’ communication with players was inadequate and not clear” but the MLB warnings to the players were delivered before the league became aware of that.“Some players apparently did not understand that they had the option to wear their normal uniform and elected to add messages to their hats bearing the pride logo as a result,” the commissioner added.He said the players “were neither fined nor disciplined, nor will they ever be.” He said the MLB “believes in the right of our players and fans to express their religious beliefs and at the same time supports the communities in this country that are fans of our clubs, including the LGBTQ community.”“We believe that a policy permitting our clubs to celebrate or honor segments of its fanbase, yet does not require players or other on-field personnel to directly participate in the celebration in ways that makes them uncomfortable, strikes the right balance,” he wrote.Neither the MLB nor the Giants responded to requests for comment from EWTN News about the letter.Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, sent a letter to Manfred last week to inform him that the DOJ will use all available means to hold employers accountable for any discrimination against Christians and that the incident was referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).In spite of the MLB’s position that the policy banning written messages is content-neutral, the DOJ letter contends that the league has a “double standard” when it comes to enforcement, noting that players were allowed to wear “Black Lives Matter” messages in spite of the general prohibition.This incident came less than a month after the Washington Nationals fired Sean Hudson, its former director of community relations, for saying the team tries to avoid the inclusion of pitcher Trevor Williams in promotional materials because of his Catholic faith.Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colorado, urged the Justice Department to reexamine the MLB’s antitrust exemption because of the incident and to investigate potential patterns of discriminatory actions.

unitedyam June 23, 2026June 24, 2026

The MLB commissioner said in a letter that the Giants did not adequately inform the players that gay pride caps were optional, Hawley said.