Regulation

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.”
Read More

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

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

Read More
Parents sentenced to prison in Brazil after excluding gender content in homeschool curriculum #Catholic A Brazilian couple was sentenced to 50 days in prison related to the homeschooling of their two daughters in an unprecedented case that has raised concerns regarding educational freedom and parental rights in Brazil.Audato and Ieda Denardi were found guilty of the crime of “intellectual neglect” by a court in the state of São Paulo, even though the prosecution itself had requested their acquittal after concluding that the minors were not suffering from any neglect and were demonstrating appropriate academic and social development.The Christian legal organization ADF International, which is representing the family in the appeal, denounced the case as “a grotesque abuse of criminal law” and stated that it would continue defending the couple.The conviction, initially handed down in April 2026 and currently under appeal before the Seventh Criminal Court Chamber of the São Paulo State Court of Justice, will remain suspended while the appeal is being resolved.‘I cannot conceive of a more dictatorial state’Ieda Denardi expressed her distress and defended the right of parents to choose their childrenʼs education.“As a mother, I cannot conceive of a more dictatorial state than the one that wants me in jail because I chose to exercise my right to direct the education and upbringing of my daughters,” she told ADF International.“My husband and I are hopeful the court will recognize our right to choose the best education for our children and overturn this unjust conviction,” she added.The couple began homeschooling their daughters in 2020 after realizing the limitations of the remote public education imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.Since then, they report a significant improvement in their daughters' academic performance and have been able to incorporate family values ​​and faith into their education.Judge takes into account the girls’ music preferencesOne of the most striking aspects of the case is the reasoning the judge used to reach the verdict. According to the ruling, the educational program provided by the parents did not include content regarding “gender and sex education” or “tolerance and diversity.”Furthermore, the court concluded that the fact that the girls, aged 15 and 11, do not enjoy popular musical genres such as “trap” or “sertanejo” demonstrated an alleged deficiency in their cultural education.The judge cited this despite the fact that both girls are pianists with advanced training and are fluent in several languages.In his ruling, the judge further accused the parents of “using their daughters as pawns in an ideological struggle, subjecting them to a form of unregulated education, the effectiveness and quality of which lack adequate metrics within the Brazilian legal system, while completely excluding the state’s involvement.”The prosecution sought the parents' acquittal“The prosecutor examined the witnesses and recommended acquittal. An independent educational psychologist found no sign of neglect. The girls themselves described rigorous daily education,” explained Julio Pohl, legal counsel for Latin America at ADF International.However, “the judge convicted anyway,” he said, “because a fifteen-year-old said she finds some music lyrics morally questionable, and because the curriculum didn’t include state-approved content on gender.”“A parent has been sentenced to prison not for failing to educate her children, but for educating them according to her own values. This is a grotesque abuse of the criminal law, and we will not let it stand.” Pohl pledged.First criminal prosecution against homeschooling familiesAccording to ADF International, more than 70,000 children are currently being homeschooled in Brazil. However, a lack of regulation has left thousands of families in a state of uncertainty.The Denardi case sets a precedent as the first criminal conviction of parents for homeschooling their children.The situation has even reached the country’s legislature, where hearings were recently held on the matter, and the Denardis asked lawmakers to pass a law guaranteeing families the right to choose this educational model.Although a homeschooling bill was passed by the Chamber of Deputies (lower house) in 2022, the initiative remains stalled in the Senate.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.
Read More

Parents sentenced to prison in Brazil after excluding gender content in homeschool curriculum #Catholic A Brazilian couple was sentenced to 50 days in prison related to the homeschooling of their two daughters in an unprecedented case that has raised concerns regarding educational freedom and parental rights in Brazil.Audato and Ieda Denardi were found guilty of the crime of “intellectual neglect” by a court in the state of São Paulo, even though the prosecution itself had requested their acquittal after concluding that the minors were not suffering from any neglect and were demonstrating appropriate academic and social development.The Christian legal organization ADF International, which is representing the family in the appeal, denounced the case as “a grotesque abuse of criminal law” and stated that it would continue defending the couple.The conviction, initially handed down in April 2026 and currently under appeal before the Seventh Criminal Court Chamber of the São Paulo State Court of Justice, will remain suspended while the appeal is being resolved.‘I cannot conceive of a more dictatorial state’Ieda Denardi expressed her distress and defended the right of parents to choose their childrenʼs education.“As a mother, I cannot conceive of a more dictatorial state than the one that wants me in jail because I chose to exercise my right to direct the education and upbringing of my daughters,” she told ADF International.“My husband and I are hopeful the court will recognize our right to choose the best education for our children and overturn this unjust conviction,” she added.The couple began homeschooling their daughters in 2020 after realizing the limitations of the remote public education imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.Since then, they report a significant improvement in their daughters' academic performance and have been able to incorporate family values ​​and faith into their education.Judge takes into account the girls’ music preferencesOne of the most striking aspects of the case is the reasoning the judge used to reach the verdict. According to the ruling, the educational program provided by the parents did not include content regarding “gender and sex education” or “tolerance and diversity.”Furthermore, the court concluded that the fact that the girls, aged 15 and 11, do not enjoy popular musical genres such as “trap” or “sertanejo” demonstrated an alleged deficiency in their cultural education.The judge cited this despite the fact that both girls are pianists with advanced training and are fluent in several languages.In his ruling, the judge further accused the parents of “using their daughters as pawns in an ideological struggle, subjecting them to a form of unregulated education, the effectiveness and quality of which lack adequate metrics within the Brazilian legal system, while completely excluding the state’s involvement.”The prosecution sought the parents' acquittal“The prosecutor examined the witnesses and recommended acquittal. An independent educational psychologist found no sign of neglect. The girls themselves described rigorous daily education,” explained Julio Pohl, legal counsel for Latin America at ADF International.However, “the judge convicted anyway,” he said, “because a fifteen-year-old said she finds some music lyrics morally questionable, and because the curriculum didn’t include state-approved content on gender.”“A parent has been sentenced to prison not for failing to educate her children, but for educating them according to her own values. This is a grotesque abuse of the criminal law, and we will not let it stand.” Pohl pledged.First criminal prosecution against homeschooling familiesAccording to ADF International, more than 70,000 children are currently being homeschooled in Brazil. However, a lack of regulation has left thousands of families in a state of uncertainty.The Denardi case sets a precedent as the first criminal conviction of parents for homeschooling their children.The situation has even reached the country’s legislature, where hearings were recently held on the matter, and the Denardis asked lawmakers to pass a law guaranteeing families the right to choose this educational model.Although a homeschooling bill was passed by the Chamber of Deputies (lower house) in 2022, the initiative remains stalled in the Senate.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.

unitedyam

The judge said the fact that the 15- and 11-year-old girls do not enjoy popular music demonstrated an alleged deficiency in their cultural education.

Read More