Larger text
Smaller text
Zubik let down by dismissal of Obamacare lawsuit
412-391-0927Staff Reporter
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Contact Us | Video | RSS | Mobile
Daily Photo Galleries
By Adam Brandolph
Published: Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 12:10 p.m.
Updated: Friday, November 30, 2012
Pittsburgh Bishop David A. Zubik said Wednesday he is disappointed that a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit the Catholic diocese filed against the Obama administration but is encouraged it has the right to sue again.
The lawsuit said the administration cannot require the diocese to offer birth control services to employees as part of the federal health care mandate,
“We will now await in good faith the accommodation to religious freedom that the federal government has claimed it will offer,” Zubik said. “However, we must all be aware that no modification to the original Department of Health and Human Services mandate in regard to religious freedom has yet been made.
“I do want to make clear, however, that we cannot and will not negotiate away our constitutional rights to religious freedom and religious expression.”
The diocese in May filed a lawsuit saying the federal government was violating its religious freedom by ordering it to facilitate and, in some cases, pay for abortion-inducing drugs, birth control and other services to which it objects.
U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry said in his 28-page opinion issued on Tuesday that the diocese has not been harmed by the health insurance law because most of the regulations do not take effect until Jan. 1, 2014.
The judge said the “defendants have actively begun the process of amending the regulations to address the specific religious objections which plaintiffs raise in this litigation.”
The lawsuit, which the diocese filed in May, named Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and their respective federal agencies as defendants.
Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or abrandolph@tribweb.com.
Most Popular Stories
- Kovacevic: It doesn’t have to be this hard
- Steelers rookie moves on after PSU scandal
- Penguins blow late lead, fall to Senators in 2OT
- Steelers might be looking at a youth movement in 2013
- Mt. Washington's Grandview Avenue isn't looking so great these days
- Pirates notebook: McCutchen scratched with soreness in right knee
- Yahoo takes big leap with $1.1B deal for Tumblr
- Penguins notebook: Vitale a no-go
- Goalie Anderson stands tall in Senators’ victory over Penguins
- Allegheny County police counting on remote-operated river vehicle
- Alvarez blast propels Pirates past Astros
You must be signed in to add comments
To comment, click the Sign in or sign up at the very top of this page.
Judge McVerry is obviously in Obama's pocket. How does he identify "damage"? Must it be physical? Must it be financial? In this case it is spiritual and a plain violation of the First Amendment. The Amendment refers to religious freedom as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". In this case, Obamacare (a law made by Congress) is "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...". This law is prohibititing members and representatives of the Catholic Church from the free exercise of their religion. The Constitution says nothing about a party needing to be harmed physically or financially to have been denied his/her Constitutional rights. The precedent has been set. Think back to the civil rights rulings of the 1960s. Minorities did not have to be physically injured or suffer a financial loss for it to be decided that being forced to use separate public facilities violated their Constitutional rights. We should come to expect such rulings under Socialism.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
