Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Why is Trump continuing Obama's war on the Little Sisters?

On these pages last year, I was attacked viciously by those claiming to be true Catholics (unlike the apostate they deemed me to be) for one simple reason: I did not think candidate Donald Trump worthy of my own support. I demurred, among other reasons, because I wasn't convinced of his sincerity of conservative convictions.

Now he is President Trump, and he has my support as a citizen, and my best hopes. Alas, however, his promises about religious freedom are going by the wayside. Two items:

-- Earlier this year a proposed executive order safeguarding religious liberty was being circulated, but then faded from view. Supposedly, it's still being worked on.

-- The Trump Administration is continuing with the Obama-era lawsuit against the Little Sisters of the Poor, which arose because of the former president's mandate that employers facilitate their employees obtaining contraception and abortifacient drugs. From the linked article: "As things stand now, it appears that Justice plans to continue defending the way the Obama administration applied the birth-control mandate, said Eric Rassbach, a Becket attorney.

'That just seems to be very contrary to what they’ve been saying publicly,' Rassbach said."

This isn't the Trump Administration we were promised, it seems.


Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Not sure I would put much truth into anything I read in USA Today or Washington Post. That being said, I am concerned on length of time new administration is taking to fill up spots in various positions. Until you get your team in place, you either have vacancies or worse, former Barry people screwing things up. Understand the problem candidates are former anti Trump people, those with successful lives and thus conflicts with government "ethics" rules, or just sheer number of people to find and vet. Hard to drain the swamp when you have to get approval of Swamp People to move forward. If Trump fails, America will end.

Fr Martin Fox said...


So, you're claiming the Washington Post simply made up the part about the Trump Department of Justice continuing the lawsuit against the Little Sisters of the Poor? Seriously, that's your claim?

Tell me, why doesn't the Department of Justice issue a correction?

Are you claiming that the lawsuit has been dropped, only no one -- including the Little Sisters of the Poor, and their legal helpers at the Becket Fund -- even knows about it?

Is this what you're claiming?

Patrick said...

My sincere hope is that they are asking for this lengthening of time in order to put together a proper settlement. An actual settlement agreed to between both parties in a court of law and approved by the judge carries specific requirements which bind both parties. The motion to simply dismiss the case returns the status quo before the case was filed. If the case was simply dropped and the current administration removed the contraceptive mandate rule, the next democrat administration could simply reinstate the rule, restarting the whole process. It could become akin to the Mexico City policy.

On the other hand, if the government admits overstepping its legal boundary as part of its settlement agreement, then a future administration would have to have a legislative change to adjust that legal boundary before the rule can be reinstated. Otherwise, the Little Sisters could simply file a court case that the government was violating the terms of the settlement. The best possible settlement would clarify boundaries in multiple areas of the government and having box tops and SMEs in place for response would be best.

That's my hope! On the other hand, Trump could be waffling, which I must admit, seems most likely...

rcg said...

You idea is compelling, Fr. Fox, it is probably the best to hope for at this time.

I also think this is affected by government agencies that are openly challenging the president, the DoJ being one of the worst. I also think the president is not willing to be as tough on his own branch and his own party as he should.

Fr Martin Fox said...


I think your argument has merit. However, here's something the President, or the Attorney General could have done today, yesterday, and earlier than that: issue a statement saying what you just said. Namely, that they want to work it out favorably to religious freedom, and they need time to do that.

After all, that is supposed to be President Trump's position. So why not just say it?

Anonymous said...

Father, Are you claiming that what the Post and other Trump hating fags put out is accurate? Of course there is a lot of reasons for delays from dropping the suit to waiting for repeal of BarryCare which would deal with the issue to eliminating all forms of attacks on religious liberty. What is fact is that the media hatred of Trump is off the charts and any suggestion that there is any reasonable reporting is long gone.

Fr Martin Fox said...


First of all, please refrain from bigoted language on my blog.

Second, I think your theory that the Washington Post invented the quote from the Department of Justice is absurd.

Third, you can huff and puff, but the facts remain: President Trump promised to come to the aid of the Little Sisters, and is still suing them. Meanwhile, the executive order that was supposed to protect religious liberty languishes.

Oh, and perhaps you can explain this? I'd forgotten about this item from February: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/13/trump-keeps-obamas-top-gay-rights-envoy-at-state-department/

Kneeling Catholic said...

from the washington post article>>
>>>The request does NOT necessarily mean that Justice plans to continue defending the mandate; the agency could be buying extra time as the new administration figures out its next move.>>>>

Father, the Post's words clash with your title "Why is Trump continuing Obama's war on the Little Sisters?" The Post article is not nearly as conclusive as you are. They think it COULD mean Trump is stabbing the Sisters in the back. You claim it DOES. I think you are jumping the gun. It is a no-brainer that when Trump finally molds the Justice Dept., the Little Sisters will get relief.

I do thank you, though. Maybe your prodding will speed things up. Trump clearly has a lot of things on his plate and a lot of enemies rooting against him so they can get back to business as usual.

rcg said...

I think KC is on to something. DoJ will sometimes use courts to create common law with the intent to settle the matter. What it could inadvertently do, as Fr. Fox suggested, is instigate both a flurry of legislative attempts to solve it as well as additional legal cases addressing loop holes in the ruling. Best th of these further injure LSoP with expenses and delays in operations. Inam not sure there is a way out of this for anyone except to obey the law or drastically change business models. I also believe this is targeted at establishing a method for state control of religion. So what is done here, and its outcome, will be very important.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I will simply point out the basic facts:

The President promised to give the Little Sisters relief.

His Justice Department is still, as of 1:57 pm on 4/28/17 (as far as I know), still suing them.

The President has signed a lot of orders in the past three months. But nothing on religious liberty, as promised.

And he re-hired an Obama appointee in the Justice Department who was very aggressive in using U.S. foreign policy to promote "gay rights" (i.e., approval of same-sex behavior and marriage).

This is not what was promised.

Anonymous said...

Father, my post which used the term fag was meant to say Washington Post and other Trump hating "RAGS". Sorry I did not catch it.

From your response, are you saying you believe gays should be barred from serving n government?

Believe you will soon see much support for religious liberty in actions by Trump. Of course he appointed strong supporter of religious liberty toSupreme Court. but for all those who believe in religious liberty, let's thank God we have Trump and not Hillary.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Anonymous: I have no idea how you inferred that from my comments. My point was simply to say that calling people "fags" was unacceptable on my blog.