Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social...
Title: “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respe Gridlock can be your friend. David “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/30/2011 10:46 PM, Chris Hahn wrote: The real question therefore is : How do we get to the place where we have competent and smart and conscientious legislators who actually come up with good regulations and only good ones, and who get rid of all the bad ones ? Our system is flawed, and we need radical change. The electoral college, the voting system that we have that virtually locks in the two party system, and the go-for-the-throat vetting of anyone who is willing to be a candidate eliminates a LOT of potential statesman-like leaders. We are stuck with a subset of thick-skinned candidates who have to pander to the republicans or the democrats at the expense of a more open radical centrist approach. Like you Billy, I don’t have a realistic answer. As I have said many times, Ernie’s Maximum Majority voting system (see http://radicalcentrism.org/resources/) would be a giant leap forward, but I don’t see us ever adopting this in our lifetimes. Therefore we are stuck with gridlock and uninspiring leaders. Chris -- Christopher P. Hahn, Ph.D. Constructive Agreement, LLC [email protected] P.O. Box 39, Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 522-4143 (406) 556-7116 fax -- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 9:30 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social... Excellent point. Since I've been around longer than you, my memories are different. I grew up with a lot of respect for government. First president I have any recollection of, not much but some, was Truman. Mostly what I know about him has been from study of history. Actually the same for Eisenhower, although I was in my teens by then and politics was beginning to make sense. Anyway, the presidents were Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK. Didn't really like JBJ but I could respect his competence; he was no dummy and had some really smart people around him. After that, one crook or incompetent after another. But I will agree with you in principle about RR's first term. Its not as simple as that, he did fire Stockman, and Stockman knew what deficit spending would lead to, but, as I said, in principle. The second term, another matter, which is where I have serious problems. After that ? No-one, and Nixon -Ford - Carter were each out of central casting for a Shakespeare play, fatally flawed in every case. OK, point
Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social...
Title: “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respe I was born right before Eisenhower's second term. Don't remember anything from him, and remember mostly the JFK assassination from his stint. Being raised by Texas Republicans, I already knew that LBJ was awful. He helped make "crookedDemocrat" one word for me, and Edwin W. Edwards of Louisiana finished the job. Carter didn't help. Then there were the two bums running in the 1980 Louisiana 4th district congressional race. Both the Democrat and the Republican were convicted of vote buying, but since the Democrat won, he apparently bought more (he really did). David “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/30/2011 10:30 PM, [email protected] wrote: Excellent point. Since I've been around longer than you, my memories are different. I grew up with a lot of respect for government. First president I have any recollection of, not much but some, was Truman. Mostly what I know about him has been from study of history. Actually the same for Eisenhower, although I was in my teens by then and politics was beginning to make sense. Anyway, the presidents were Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK. Didn't really like JBJ but I could respect his competence; he was no dummy and had some really smart people around him. After that, one crook or incompetent after another. But I will agree with you in principle about RR's first term. Its not as simple as that, he did fire Stockman, and Stockman knew what deficit spending would lead to, but, as I said, in principle. The second term, another matter, which is where I have serious problems. After that ? No-one, and Nixon -Ford - Carter were each out of central casting for a Shakespeare play, fatally flawed in every case. OK, point well made. The real question therefore is : How do we get to the place where we have competent and smart and conscientious legislators who actually come up with good regulations and only good ones, and who get rid of all the bad ones ? Sorry, but I don't have an answer. At least it is possible to see the problem in far better perspective than before. Billy - 12/30/2011 6:27:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Trouble is, the last time I think that I've seen anything approaching good government at the national level is 1981-1984. Since I was in the banana republic of the US, Louisiana, at the time, I have to qualify my remarks. I would hope that it would occur more often than that, but apparently not. IMAO. David “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 11:48 PM, [email protected] wrote: Not how I look at it. My re-wording : More of that Leftist abuse of power. We need to kick out the Leftists and make government regulations sane again. "Government" isn't the enemy, BAD government is the
Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social...
Chris : Ernie's system is featured in one of the Amendments but under the title "Instant Runoff" voting It mentions Ernie and discusses his methodology Billy --- 12/30/2011 8:46:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: The real question therefore is : How do we get to the place where we have competent and smart and conscientious legislators who actually come up with good regulations and only good ones, and who get rid of all the bad ones ? Our system is flawed, and we need radical change. The electoral college, the voting system that we have that virtually locks in the two party system, and the go-for-the-throat vetting of anyone who is willing to be a candidate eliminates a LOT of potential statesman-like leaders. We are stuck with a subset of thick-skinned candidates who have to pander to the republicans or the democrats at the expense of a more open radical centrist approach. Like you Billy, I don’t have a realistic answer. As I have said many times, Ernie’s Maximum Majority voting system (see _http://radicalcentrism.org/resources/_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/resources/) ) would be a giant leap forward, but I don’t see us ever adopting this in our lifetimes. Therefore we are stuck with gridlock and uninspiring leaders. Chris -- Christopher P. Hahn, Ph.D. Constructive Agreement, LLC [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) P.O. Box 39, Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 522-4143 (406) 556-7116 fax -- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 9:30 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social... Excellent point. Since I've been around longer than you, my memories are different. I grew up with a lot of respect for government. First president I have any recollection of, not much but some, was Truman. Mostly what I know about him has been from study of history. Actually the same for Eisenhower, although I was in my teens by then and politics was beginning to make sense. Anyway, the presidents were Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK. Didn't really like JBJ but I could respect his competence; he was no dummy and had some really smart people around him. After that, one crook or incompetent after another. But I will agree with you in principle about RR's first term. Its not as simple as that, he did fire Stockman, and Stockman knew what deficit spending would lead to, but, as I said, in principle. The second term, another matter, which is where I have serious problems. After that ? No-one, and Nixon -Ford - Carter were each out of central casting for a Shakespeare play, fatally flawed in every case. OK, point well made. The real question therefore is : How do we get to the place where we have competent and smart and conscientious legislators who actually come up with good regulations and only good ones, and who get rid of all the bad ones ? Sorry, but I don't have an answer. At least it is possible to see the problem in far better perspective than before. Billy - 12/30/2011 6:27:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: Trouble is, the last time I think that I've seen anything approaching good government at the national level is 1981-1984. Since I was in the banana republic of the US, Louisiana, at the time, I have to qualify my remarks. I would hope that it would occur more often than that, but apparently not. IMAO. David “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 11:48 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Not how I look at it. My re-wording : More of that Leftist abuse of power. We need to kick out the Leftists and make government regulations sane again. "Government" isn't the enemy, BAD government is the enemy. Billy 12/29/2011 8:47:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: More of that great government regulation. David “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for
Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social...
This is no different than things like requiring schools to not discriminate by religion or race if they want to take public funds. There is no right to public funds. If they want the money, they follow the rules everyone has to follow. If not, they don't get public money. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
RE: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social...
The real question therefore is : How do we get to the place where we have competent and smart and conscientious legislators who actually come up with good regulations and only good ones, and who get rid of all the bad ones ? Our system is flawed, and we need radical change. The electoral college, the voting system that we have that virtually locks in the two party system, and the go-for-the-throat vetting of anyone who is willing to be a candidate eliminates a LOT of potential statesman-like leaders. We are stuck with a subset of thick-skinned candidates who have to pander to the republicans or the democrats at the expense of a more open radical centrist approach. Like you Billy, I don't have a realistic answer. As I have said many times, Ernie's Maximum Majority voting system (see http://radicalcentrism.org/resources/) would be a giant leap forward, but I don't see us ever adopting this in our lifetimes. Therefore we are stuck with gridlock and uninspiring leaders. Chris -- Christopher P. Hahn, Ph.D. Constructive Agreement, LLC <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] P.O. Box 39, Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 522-4143 (406) 556-7116 fax -- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 9:30 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social... Excellent point. Since I've been around longer than you, my memories are different. I grew up with a lot of respect for government. First president I have any recollection of, not much but some, was Truman. Mostly what I know about him has been from study of history. Actually the same for Eisenhower, although I was in my teens by then and politics was beginning to make sense. Anyway, the presidents were Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK. Didn't really like JBJ but I could respect his competence; he was no dummy and had some really smart people around him. After that, one crook or incompetent after another. But I will agree with you in principle about RR's first term. Its not as simple as that, he did fire Stockman, and Stockman knew what deficit spending would lead to, but, as I said, in principle. The second term, another matter, which is where I have serious problems. After that ? No-one, and Nixon -Ford - Carter were each out of central casting for a Shakespeare play, fatally flawed in every case. OK, point well made. The real question therefore is : How do we get to the place where we have competent and smart and conscientious legislators who actually come up with good regulations and only good ones, and who get rid of all the bad ones ? Sorry, but I don't have an answer. At least it is possible to see the problem in far better perspective than before. Billy - 12/30/2011 6:27:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Trouble is, the last time I think that I've seen anything approaching good government at the national level is 1981-1984. Since I was in the banana republic of the US, Louisiana, at the time, I have to qualify my remarks. I would hope that it would occur more often than that, but apparently not. IMAO. David "A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom."-Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 11:48 PM, [email protected] wrote: Not how I look at it. My re-wording : More of that Leftist abuse of power. We need to kick out the Leftists and make government regulations sane again. "Government" isn't the enemy, BAD government is the enemy. Billy 12/29/2011 8:47:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: More of that great government regulation. David "A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom."-Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 2:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion Laurie Goodstein ("The New York Times," December 28, 2011) Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive s
Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social...
Excellent point. Since I've been around longer than you, my memories are different. I grew up with a lot of respect for government. First president I have any recollection of, not much but some, was Truman. Mostly what I know about him has been from study of history. Actually the same for Eisenhower, although I was in my teens by then and politics was beginning to make sense. Anyway, the presidents were Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK. Didn't really like JBJ but I could respect his competence; he was no dummy and had some really smart people around him. After that, one crook or incompetent after another. But I will agree with you in principle about RR's first term. Its not as simple as that, he did fire Stockman, and Stockman knew what deficit spending would lead to, but, as I said, in principle. The second term, another matter, which is where I have serious problems. After that ? No-one, and Nixon -Ford - Carter were each out of central casting for a Shakespeare play, fatally flawed in every case. OK, point well made. The real question therefore is : How do we get to the place where we have competent and smart and conscientious legislators who actually come up with good regulations and only good ones, and who get rid of all the bad ones ? Sorry, but I don't have an answer. At least it is possible to see the problem in far better perspective than before. Billy - 12/30/2011 6:27:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Trouble is, the last time I think that I've seen anything approaching good government at the national level is 1981-1984. Since I was in the banana republic of the US, Louisiana, at the time, I have to qualify my remarks. I would hope that it would occur more often than that, but apparently not. IMAO. David _ “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 11:48 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Not how I look at it. My re-wording : More of that Leftist abuse of power. We need to kick out the Leftists and make government regulations sane again. "Government" isn't the enemy, BAD government is the enemy. Billy 12/29/2011 8:47:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: More of that great government regulation. David _ “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 2:31 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion Laurie Goodstein ("The New York Times," December 28, 2011) Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws. For the nation’s Catholic bishops, the Illinois requirement is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals. “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services. The Illinois experience indicates that the bishops face formidable opponents who also claim to have justice and the Constitution on their side. They include not only gay rights advocates, but also many religious believers and churches that support gay equality (some Catholic legislators among them). They frame the issue as a matter of civil rights, saying that Catholic Charities was using taxpayer money to discriminate against same-sex couples. Tim Kee, a teacher in Marion, Ill., who was turned away by Catholic Charities three ye
Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social...
Title: “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respe Trouble is, the last time I think that I've seen anything approaching good government at the national level is 1981-1984. Since I was in the banana republic of the US, Louisiana, at the time, I have to qualify my remarks. I would hope that it would occur more often than that, but apparently not. IMAO. David “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 11:48 PM, [email protected] wrote: Not how I look at it. My re-wording : More of that Leftist abuse of power. We need to kick out the Leftists and make government regulations sane again. "Government" isn't the enemy, BAD government is the enemy. Billy 12/29/2011 8:47:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: More of that great government regulation. David “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 2:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion Laurie Goodstein ("The New York Times," December 28, 2011) Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws. For the nation’s Catholic bishops, the Illinois requirement is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals. “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services. The Illinois experience indicates that the bishops face formidable opponents who also claim to have justice and the Constitution on their side. They include not only gay rights advocates, but also many religious believers and churches that support gay equality (some Catholic legislators among them). They f
Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social...
Not how I look at it. My re-wording : More of that Leftist abuse of power. We need to kick out the Leftists and make government regulations sane again. "Government" isn't the enemy, BAD government is the enemy. Billy 12/29/2011 8:47:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: More of that great government regulation. David _ “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 2:31 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion Laurie Goodstein ("The New York Times," December 28, 2011) Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws. For the nation’s Catholic bishops, the Illinois requirement is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals. “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services. The Illinois experience indicates that the bishops face formidable opponents who also claim to have justice and the Constitution on their side. They include not only gay rights advocates, but also many religious believers and churches that support gay equality (some Catholic legislators among them). They frame the issue as a matter of civil rights, saying that Catholic Charities was using taxpayer money to discriminate against same-sex couples. Tim Kee, a teacher in Marion, Ill., who was turned away by Catholic Charities three years ago when he and his longtime partner, Rick Wade, tried to adopt a child, said: “We’re both Catholic, we love our church, but Catholic Charities closed the door to us. To add insult to injury, my tax dollars went to provide discrimination against me.” The bishops are engaged in the religious liberty battle on several fronts. They have asked the Obama administration to lift a new requirement that Catholic and other religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and charity groups cover contraception in their employees’ health plans. A decision has been expected for weeks now. At the same time, the bishops are protesting the recent denial of a federal contract to provide care for victims of sex trafficking, saying the decision was anti-Catholic. An official with the Department of Health and Human Services recently told a hearing on Capitol Hill that the bishops’ program was rejected because it did not provide the survivors of sex trafficking, some of whom are rape victims, with referrals for abortions or contraceptives. Critics of the church argue that no group has a constitutional right to a government contract, especially if it refuses to provide required services. But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed. “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.” The controversy in Illinois began when the state legislature voted in November 2010 to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples, which the state’s Catholic bishops lobbied against. The legislation was titled “The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act,” and Bishop Paprocki said he was given the impression that it would not affect state contracts for Catholic Charities and other religious social services. In New York State, religious groups lobbied for specific exemption language in the same-sex marriage bill. But bishops in Illinois did not negotiate, Bishop Paprocki said. “It would have been seen as, ‘We’re going to compromise o
Re: [RC] Catholic Charities programs forced to shut down because of WH social policies
Title: “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respe More of that great government regulation. David “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/29/2011 2:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion Laurie Goodstein ("The New York Times," December 28, 2011) Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws. For the nation’s Catholic bishops, the Illinois requirement is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals. “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services. The Illinois experience indicates that the bishops face formidable opponents who also claim to have justice and the Constitution on their side. They include not only gay rights advocates, but also many religious believers and churches that support gay equality (some Catholic legislators among them). They frame the issue as a matter of civil rights, saying that Catholic Charities was using taxpayer money to discriminate against same-sex couples. Tim Kee, a teacher in Marion, Ill., who was turned away by Catholic Charities three years ago when he and his longtime partner, Rick Wade, tried to adopt a child, said: “We’re both Catholic, we love our church, but Catholic Charities closed the door to us. To add insult to injury, my tax dollars went to provide discrimination against me.” The bishops are engaged in the religious liberty battle on several fronts. They have asked the Obama administration to lift a new requirement that Catholic and other religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and charity groups cover contraception in their employees’ health plans. A decision has been expected for weeks now. At the same time, the bishops are protesting the recent denial of a federal contract to provide care for victims of sex trafficking, saying the decision was anti-Catholic. An official with the Department of Health and Human Services recently told a hearing on Capitol Hill that the bishops’ program was rejected because it did not provide the survivors of sex trafficking, some of whom are rape victims, with referrals for abortions or contraceptives. Critics of the church argue that no group has a constitutional right to a government contract, especially if it refuses to provide required services. But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed. “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.” The controversy
