Democrats try to force nuns to pay for abortions. Sounds authoritarian to me.
The Little Sisters of the Poor are back in the news.
In case you've forgotten who they are and why they matter, let's briefly review what they're all about. According to the group's website, the Little Sisters' mission is to ensure that "the elderly and dying are cared for with love and dignity until God calls them home.' The Little Sisters work in 31 countries and began work in America in 1868. Today, the nuns operate about 20 homes in the United States.
It's a lovely mission and one that they should be allowed to do in peace, free from interference from the government.
No such luck, however. Blue states like California and Pennsylvania refuse to leave the Little Sisters alone and couldn't care less about their religious beliefs.
Since the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act birth control mandate that required employers to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance plans, the Little Sisters have been locked in a legal battle for the past 14 years.
Despite clear wins for the nuns and religious liberty at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 and 2020, Democrats continue to persecute the Little Sisters.
Will they ever stop?
Will the Little Sisters have to make a third trip to the Supreme Court? That's 'absurd.'
A federal district court in Philadelphia has revived the vindictive fight, siding with Pennsylvania and New Jersey against a 2017 Trump administration religious conscience rule, which offered the nuns and other religious groups protection from the mandate. Now, these states want the Little Sisters to offer contraception and abortion drugs or face millions of dollars in fines.
'The district court blessed an out-of-control effort by Pennsylvania and New Jersey to attack the Little Sisters and religious liberty,' Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, said in a statement. 'It is absurd to think the Little Sisters might need yet another trip to the Supreme Court to end what has now been more than a dozen years of litigation over the same issue.'
The Little Sisters will appeal this decision, but it truly is ridiculous that they must waste time fighting the government in this way, when all they want to do is serve people in need.
And lest you think it's odd to be talking about nuns and contraception, the Little Sisters employ lay people who work as nurses, cooks and serve other roles in the group's homes for the elderly.
The nuns don't want to be complicit in providing services that directly violate their deep belief in the sanctity of life, which guides their work.
They shouldn't have to. There are other ways the government could provide contraceptives to these employees without pushing the nuns to do it.
Progressives claim Trump is an authoritarian. They should look at themselves.
For all the times we've been scolded about how Trump and his supporters are fascists and Nazis, progressives ought to take a hard look at themselves first.
Democrats have decided their views on culture are the only ones that should matter, religious liberty be damned.
Look at how liberal governments have gone after Catholic adoption agencies, Christian bakers, website designers and farmers and tried to force them to betray their faith just to participate in the public square.
These are often yearslong court battles, much like the Little Sisters have undertaken.
Thankfully, we have a strong First Amendment that protects our speech and religious freedom. And the Supreme Court keeps ruling on the side of protecting these essential liberties, which are promised in our Constitution.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in writing the majority for the 2020 case, observed that the Little Sisters 'have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.'
Five years later, the fight continues. It's time for Democrats to leave these nuns alone.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
a minute ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California Supreme Court clears way for Newsom's redistricting plan
The state Supreme Court opened the door Wednesday to plans by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats to redraw California's congressional districts in a gerrymander designed to pick up five seats, rejecting a Republican legal challenge. A lawsuit Monday by legislative Republicans contended the hastily drafted ballot measure, scheduled for votes in both houses on Thursday, has not been published long enough to meet the public-notice requirements in the state Constitution. But the court dismissed the suit Wednesday in a brief order with little explanation. The Republican lawmakers 'have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under (the) California Constitution,' the court said. Six justices, all appointed by Democratic governors, endorsed the order, while Justice Carol Corrigan, the only Republican appointee, was absent and did not participate, the court said. Newsom proposed the ballot measure, titled the Election Rigging Response Act, after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott introduced legislation to redraw the state's House districts and enable Republicans to pick up five seats in next year's elections. Democrats currently hold 43 of California's 52 House seats. The governor's measure, if approved by two-thirds majorities in both the Assembly and state Senate — where Democrats hold more than two-thirds of the seats — would redesign California's House seats for the rest of this decade in response to changes in Texas or any other state. Ballot measures approved by the voters in 2008 and 2010 established a bipartisan, independent commission to draft congressional and legislative districts in California, a task previously left up to state legislators, who design districts in most states. Newsom's proposed state constitutional amendment, ACA8, would temporarily suspend that commission if approved by a majority of the voters in November. While California law does not allow legislative action on a proposed measure until 30 days after it has been introduced, Democrats apparently sidestepped that deadline with a longstanding practice known as 'gut and amend' — using other legislation that had been pending for more than 30 days, erasing the contents and replacing them with the redistricting language. That was apparently enough to defeat the Republicans' lawsuit. Other Republican lawmakers, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, have promised additional challenges under the California Constitution and federal election laws.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Vance scoffs at ‘idea that Gavin Newsom is somehow going to mimic' Trump's social media style
Vice President JD Vance criticized California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Wednesday for trying to 'mimic' President Trump's style on social media. In an interview on Fox News's 'The Ingraham Angle,' the vice president said Newsom's revamped approach to online messaging misses the 'fundamental genius' that has fueled Trump's appeal. 'This idea that Gavin Newsom is somehow going to mimic Donald Trump's style — I think that ignores the fundamental genius of President Trump's political success,' Vance said, 'which is that he's authentic.' 'He just is who he is,' Vance added. The comments came after Fox News host Laura Ingraham noted Democrats 'are still doing their 2024 autopsy' and seem to have concluded that they need to be tougher and 'be more like Trump in tone' to win future elections. Vance said that lesson is misguided. 'Look, the autopsy for the Democrats — some free political advice from the president of the United States — is stop sounding like crazy people,' Vance said. 'That really is all it is.' 'You've got to be yourself,' Vance added after criticizing Newsom's approach. 'You've actually got to talk to people honestly about the issues. I don't think it's that complicated: Don't be a crazy person. Be authentic.' Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, in recent days has rolled out a revamped messaging strategy that mirrors Trump's signature social media style. The California governor has posted rants in all-caps letters, he's assigned nicknames to his political opponents, and he's referred to his legislative proposals and political rallies as 'beautiful.' While Newsom's approach has been embraced by many Democrats, who have struggled to find their footing since losing the 2024 election, the governor has faced criticism from some Republicans and Fox News hosts. 'FOX HATES THAT I AM AMERICA'S MOST FAVORITE GOVERNOR ('RATINGS KING') SAVING AMERICA,' Newsom's office posted earlier this week, responding to that criticism.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
California Supreme Court rejects GOP effort to halt Newsom's redistricting push
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by state Republican legislators seeking to halt Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict California's congressional map. 'Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under California Constitution article IV, section 8,' reads a brief order posted to the docket. Newsom has hit back at Republican redistricting efforts in Texas by pushing for a special election this November to get voters' approval on a more favorable House map for Democrats in California in time for the 2026 midterms. The ruling paves the way for the California legislature to proceed with voting as soon as Thursday on a package that would set up the special election. Republicans' legal challenge revolved around a 30-day waiting period mandated under the state constitution before an introduced bill can be passed, unless three-fourths of lawmakers agree to waive the requirement. Democrats looked to get around the requirement by gutting the text of bills introduced in February and replacing them with the redistricting effort. Four state Republican legislators — Sen. Tony Strickland, Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, Assemblyman Tri Ta and Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez — went to the state's high court on Tuesday seeking to effectively block the redistricting effort. The petition sought to stop Democrats from moving ahead until Sept. 18, far past the window that state officials have said would be necessary to prepare for an election on Nov. 4. The lawmakers' attorneys acknowledged in court filings that it was a case of first impression but said that permitting Democrats' strategy would be 'comically absurd.' In a joint statement, the lawmakers stressed the court did not explain its ruling and said it is 'not the end of this fight.' 'This means Governor Newsom and the Democrats' plan to gut the voter-created Citizens Redistricting Commission, silence public input, and stick taxpayers with a $200+ million bill will proceed,' the statement reads. 'We will continue to challenge this unconstitutional power grab in the courts and at the ballot box. Californians deserve fair, transparent elections, not secret backroom deals to protect politicians,' it continued.
