iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Jon Ward
GET UPDATES FROM Jon:

Becket Fund Lawsuit Against Obama Birth Control Mandate Signals Culture Wars Jump

Posted: 03/10/2012 7:35 am Updated: 03/13/2012 10:37 am

Culture War
Anti-abortion protesters pray outside the U.S. Supreme Court during the annual "March For Life," on Jan. 22, 2012.

WASHINGTON -- For 17 years, The Becket Fund has been a small, nonprofit law firm known for defending religious liberty cases for people of many faiths.

It has fought for the right of Buddhists in Connecticut to build a temple, despite opposition from the local zoning board. It has defended the right of Sikh boys in France to wear turbans to school. And its founder, Kevin Hasson, a Catholic, spoke out in defense of Rep. Keith Ellison's (D-Minn.) right to be sworn in as a member of Congress using a Koran in 2006.

Still, The Becket Fund has kept a relatively low profile, attracting little controversy while gaining a reputation for principled defense of religious liberty.

That's about to change.

The group jumped head first into the culture wars recently by filing lawsuits on behalf of a Benedictine college, a Roman Catholic university, and an interdenominational school against President Barack Obama's employer contraception mandate.

It's a fight bound to bring some heavy incoming fire at the firm, given the charged nature of the debate. But The Becket Fund's willingness to wade in to the high-stakes debate comes in part from new leadership. Hasson, a former Justice Department attorney under President Ronald Reagan who has suffered from Parkinson's disease for more than a decade, stepped down from his leadership post almost one year ago.

A somewhat unlikely replacement took over: William P. Mumma, a Wall Street banker who runs the New York trading desk for Mitsubishi UFJ Securities USA.

Since Mumma took over last May, he has infused The Becket Fund with a new sense of energy and urgency, expanding the organization and increasing its fundraising.

For many years, Mumma told The Huffington Post, The Becket Fund "had a super-clear strategy: how does the law work to support religious liberty? But in effect The Becket Fund was operating as a Venus fly trap … They waited patiently for the right cases to come."

"What The Becket Fund is trying to do right now is when we know there's an issue that is really threatening to religious liberty, we are actively out there looking to see if there's a client we can help," said, Mumma, who converted to Catholicism as an adult.

Hasson wanted Mumma to replace him, precisely because he had the potential take Becket in this new direction, Mumma said.

"Bill is a Wall Street guy. Bill is a true believer. He wanted to raise the profile and reorganize. So we are a nonprofit that runs like a well-oiled business now," said Becket's executive director, Kristina Arriaga, who has worked for the organization since 1995. "We have gone from guerilla warriors to special forces," she said.

Arriaga said Becket has gotten more aggressive in the face of what it views as a hostility to religious freedom under the Obama administration. The fight with Obama over whether to force religious institutions to offer contraception, including the morning after pill, in health insurance plans has put this tension under a very bright spotlight.

After initially mandating that employers pay for such services in insurance plans, the White House changed course and said that health insurance companies would be ordered to provide those contraception free of charge.

One of Becket's attorneys, Mark Rienzi, has been an outspoken voice arguing that the Obama's change on contraception is not the compromise the White House says it is. And after Becket hired the conservative public affairs group, Shirley and Banister, in January, the company helped organize a conference call to brief reporters on the lawsuit the firm was filing against the White House on behalf of Ave Maria University, a private Catholic college in Florida.

The public debate has pitted advocates who believe religious liberty is being used as an excuse to deny health services to women, and those who hold that the First Amendment's free exercise is being trampled. The White House amendment of its position took the dispute off the front burner, but it continues to simmer among religious liberty advocates.

Even when the controversy was raging, parts of the issue weren't fully explored, including whether the refusal of religious institutions to provide contraception in insurance plans crosses the line from First Amendment liberty to causing harm to another person. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech have been sacrosanct in the U.S. up to the point where the exercise of those rights hurts another person. Hasson wrote a book in 2005 exploring this line, titled "The Right to Be Wrong."

The Becket Fund, founded to defend the First Amendment, argues that women seeking contraception who work for an employer that objects to providing it can access Title X funding, which provides taxpayer money to pay for contraception. As for women who take birth control pills to reduce the threat of ovarian cancer and other health reasons, Arriaga said that "none of our clients in the HHS mandate lawsuit have asserted that they are against the use of contraceptives for medical reasons.”

Arriaga said she was not concerned about criticism that Becket will face for taking the contraception mandate cases. But critics who have battled with Becket in the past are already seizing on the firm's participation in suits to label it part of the "religious right."

"I think that the positions that the Becket Fund has taken in general are not at all dissimilar to the ones taken by the American Center for Law and Justice or the Alliance Defense Fund," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, referring to law advocacy groups founded by evangelical leader Pat Robertson and James Dobson, respectively.

"I've always thought they were just a hair's breath away from those groups and now it seems they are trying to raise their profile dramatically in the challenge," Lynn said of Becket. "I think there's a kind of competition on the so called religious right about membership and contributions."

Lynn said he believes a conscience exemption exists, but the contraception mandate case is one of "a claim of conscience that trumps the medical needs and ethical decisions of a woman employee."

"I say baloney," Lynn said. "The right is with the employee to be able to obtain the full range of medical coverage. I don't think there is such as thing as a corporate conscience except in narrow circumstances."

Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for American Center for Law and Justice, told HuffPost that the Becket Fund has been "more of a niche group, very ecumenical." But its involvement in the contraception issue shows "they're moving with the times, and I think that's a good thing."

"You're seeing a bit of a broadening out out in taking on new issues quickly," Sekulow said.

But the contraception fight is also a natural one for Becket to join, given Hasson's deep Catholic roots. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not been the only group to speak out against the mandate, but led the charge. And the two most senior voices in the White House opposed to Obama's decision -- Vice President Joe Biden and former White House chief of staff William Daley -- are both Catholics.

Mumma said he thinks Becket's reputation will be vindicated as the lawsuits make their way to the Supreme Court. He cited as a hopeful sign a recent decision, where all nine justices in January ruled against Obama's Justice Department in a religious freedom case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"What we would like to see with the HHS lawsuit is when they make their way through the courts that we get a similar outcome, and that judges who are liberal or Democratic in their outlook, and who might be enthusiastic supporters of the current administration, will nonetheless find that in the cases we've picked, and in the arguments we've made, that they agree with the Becket Fund's understanding of religious liberty, which when all is settled will then help calm a little bit any concerns that we have taken a partisan position," Mumma said.

CORRECTION: A headline elsewhere on HuffPost referred to the Becket Fund as a Catholic organization. We've since changed the headline to reflect that it is not solely a Catholic organization.

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- For 17 years, The Becket Fund has been a small, nonprofit law firm known for defending religious liberty cases for people of many faiths. It has fought for the right of Buddhists in ...
WASHINGTON -- For 17 years, The Becket Fund has been a small, nonprofit law firm known for defending religious liberty cases for people of many faiths. It has fought for the right of Buddhists in ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,899
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (48 total)
  1 of 5  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS

photo
murphthesurf3 12:07 PM on 03/10/2012
"The Becket Fund, founded to defend the First Amendment, argues that women seeking contraception who work for an employer that objects to providing it can access Title X funding, which provides taxpayer money to pay for contraception. As for women who take birth control pills to reduce the threat of ovarian cancer and other health reasons, Arriaga said that "none of our clients in the HHS  Read More...

THIS IS THE COMPROMISE THAT I ENDORSE. One of the most significant issues left unsolved by the Obama Compromise is that MANY church institutions are SELF INSURED. In other words the insurer, most often a risk pooling trust, is itself governed by the principles of the church.

Becket is a reputable and conscientious establishment. The Becket Fund has defended dozens of faiths including: Amish, Buddhists, Evangelical Christians, Hindus, Jews, Lutherans, Mormons, Muslims, Native Americans, Non-Denominational Christians, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Santeros, Sikhs, Unitarian Universalists, and Zoroastrians.

Title X Funding would have to be adjusted to ensure that women needing to access it from this exempt category will not be hassled or barred.

Visit it at: http://www.becketfund.org/our-mission/
Radar496
USA:2%breadtakers&98%breadmakers
08:25 PM on 05/24/2012
Isn't the Catholic Church run by celibate men (isn't that birth controll?)?
photo
jrmaddog
What is a
01:40 PM on 05/22/2012
Various organizations affiliated with the Catholic church object to a federal mandate to cover contraceptive services under medical insurance for their employees. The Church maintains such a requirement would violate their religious beliefs even though the affiliated organizations are not churches but various business entities such as hospitals, universities, relief agencies, and so on. So, the following question should be addressed by those organizations: Do they preclude employment of divorcees, adulterers, thiefs, users of profane language, homosexuals & lesbians, transvestites, drunkards, and, most importantly, those who are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic church as regards the Eucharist? All of the mentioned areas are part of Catholic belief along with opposition to contraceptive services. So, why is only contraceptive services an issue?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrEthiopian
I live on Earth
11:38 PM on 03/27/2012
Ave Maria University - pays no taxes and because of this fact, that this crooked money-making business worms out of paying their fare share they should not have any say in the system they refuse to financially support.

Its time to force religious organizations to pay taxes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pixeloid
Reality has a liberal bias.
11:31 AM on 03/15/2012
This is a health issue, no matter how much religious extremists think it's about them. How about insurance coverage for surgery or transfusions? Should those be removed because they might offend Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses?
06:00 PM on 03/12/2012
Has it occurred to anyone that 1000 years ago that Becket wanted a dual justice system????

He was dead (excuse the pun) wrong!

The question should answered as to whether religious entities may force their practices and doctrine on those who believe otherwise.
08:30 PM on 03/15/2012
No body is forced to take a job with an employer that does not provide health insurance that excludes coverage in areas the prospective employee deems important.
photo
Yvette67
Laugh every day; it nurtures the spirit.
10:03 PM on 03/15/2012
You want your employer to tell you what is important for you - it could be anything - Try buying an individual health insurnce policy If you have any pre-exiisting condition - you will be turned down - It is going down a slippery slope when an employer has your medical needs in their hands
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrEthiopian
I live on Earth
12:06 AM on 03/28/2012
Why have the conversation in the first place? The religious entity Ave Maria University has an administrative policy to only admit candidates that adhere to their morality unjust polices including no pre-marital sex, and because all of its students will adhere to the polices and are not having sex, none of them will ever need birth control, how can you litigate for something that will never be used?

Tax the church!
11:01 PM on 03/11/2012
Religious institutions are not people and therefore have no protection under the first amendment. It's just down right silly to claim that an entity without the capacity to have a conscience is being asked to violate it. See - http://ianpmf.tumblr.com/post/17606366983/ianpmf-the-supreme-court-and-the-catholic-bishops
photo
marymeade2
I prefer liberty over tyranny
11:17 AM on 03/12/2012
I went to your web site. Malarky.
Here is the definition of person: The term "person" includes one or more individuals, governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, or receivers.

As for Thomas Jefferson, he was not a religious man, per se, but, he did believe that religious organizations, all persons be protected under the First Amendment. Your belief that they aren't is absurd and the blog site you reccomend is nothing more or less than a left wing blog site spouting their twisted, rewriting of history and the First Amendment. If the framers of the Bill of Rights had intended to exclude religious institutions they would have. The two clauses regarding religion is very clear and easy to understand for most people, except left wing anti American extremists.
02:57 PM on 03/12/2012
Are you using a legal dictionary, because the only context that recognizes "artificial" persons is the legal context and as such this is mostly a 19th century development. the OED, and other normal dictionary have varying definitions, all related to what the the legal system terms "natural persons." Outside the law those are the only persons that exist. Ironically, of course, Christian theology certainly does not consider corporations or the Church to be "persons." It is not just a legal fiction, but a secular legal fiction of, as I said, the 19th century and beyond.

As to Thomas Jefferson my blog post provides direct quotes from his own writings, and I see you haven't bothered to deal with any of those. Perhaps because they prove my point? Perhaps because he railed against institutions like the Catholic Church rather explicitly in his writings? It is common knowledge that the Church of England was the most significant institution that all the founders were trying to protect us, natural persons, from when they devised the religion clauses.
photo
Yvette67
Laugh every day; it nurtures the spirit.
07:26 PM on 03/11/2012
Then it seems that an equal argument can be made that churches no longer can be exempted from taxation. My conscience tells me so.
10:22 AM on 03/13/2012
Since a large number of American households pay no income tax, that is not a big deal.
photo
Yvette67
Laugh every day; it nurtures the spirit.
01:28 PM on 03/14/2012
Not a big deal to the government - but a big deal to the churches - some have huge $s coming in
08:31 PM on 03/15/2012
The laws of the land say otherwise.
photo
Yvette67
Laugh every day; it nurtures the spirit.
09:48 PM on 03/15/2012
laws change
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ChaCubed
Fabulously Liberal
03:55 PM on 03/11/2012
Catholics are NOT anti-birth-control: they teach and preach abstinence, the rhythm method, and millions of devout Catholics use the vaginal secretions viscosity test to determine when it's safe to have sex without getting pregnant.

[Does the Church even have a position on vasectomies? And if so, do they order their insurance companies to refuse to cover them? Same question for tubal ligations.]

It's not because they don't want people having sex unless they're making babies, because that's exactly the purpose of the rhythm method and the secretion test, so what is the basis for their position against condoms and hormonal medications?
photo
Yvette67
Laugh every day; it nurtures the spirit.
07:35 PM on 03/11/2012
In my opinion, to control women - it is the most male dominated organization in the world - the above mentioned BC that is OK for the church is puts the responsibility on women - "not tonight dear" can only go so far - women need access to whatever BC suits them best
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:32 AM on 03/12/2012
"do they order their insurance companies to refuse to cover them" They don't order insurance companies to do anything. They decline to purchase or facilitate policies that include a birth control coverage. This includes vasectomies and TL. NFP allows a couple to control the size of their family without distorting the procreative and unitive nautre of sexuality.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ChaCubed
Fabulously Liberal
11:57 AM on 03/12/2012
Thank you for answering my question, Moogoo. I appreciate it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ChaCubed
Fabulously Liberal
01:23 PM on 03/12/2012
I know to what NFP refers, but what are the words the acronym represents?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:00 PM on 03/11/2012
Religious freedom is a matter for the mind and personal practice. It is not for the economy and public practice. It is so confusing isn't it? The Bishops should consolidate their insurance and healthcare policies and publish coverage and deductible tables for all consumers.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:53 PM on 03/11/2012
I'm very sad to see the Becket Fund move from defending religious liberty, to defending the oppression of women by religiously backed corporations and businesses.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Donald Kinge
12:34 PM on 03/11/2012
They're merely sacrificing individual freedoms (a dominant ideology in our society) for religious freedom (another dominant ideology, but arguably less dominant than the previous one). You can't have control over your own body if it upsets somebody's religious beliefs (even though 98% of the religions members go against their own religious teachings....which are made up anyway).
Javalation
Laughing in a Daydream
12:31 PM on 03/11/2012
Medical researchers have recently identified benefits to birth control pills that reduce the incidence of cancers. We are probably right around the corner from most women taking them for health reasons, and the side effect will be birth control. Won't that drive the cons crazy?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lioncarern
Woe unto those who call good evil, and evil good.
01:01 AM on 03/13/2012
Many women should never take the pill, eg those who smoke, those who have certain types of blood pressure issues, clotting disorders, heart problems, those who have had certain cancers, those who have had severe side effects from the Pill in the past, those with severe migraines, the list is large. And "cons" is short for convict, not conservative. And those research studies are preliminary, anyone who know how to critique a research article will read it with that knowledge, then look to see how may other researchers are able to replicate the research before physicians recommend the use of the pill to protect against cancer. Also there need to be studies done to determine the minimum effective dose, which estrogen progestin combination has the most effect with the least harmful side effects, etc. In short, there is a lot of research that still needs to be done.
12:29 PM on 03/11/2012
Just a thought, the Republicans and so called "Religious" garbage naggers are all up in women's birth control. Let's not forget condoms...its a form of birth control. Make them illegal. If their all out to end BC that only women can use then....take it all! Then lets set back and see how many of these Republicans and "Religious" trash diggers end up with a STD.

And idea that's just about as nasty as the Republican elected officials have been these last few years.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Tykete
Theres only you and me and we just disagree
12:05 PM on 03/12/2012
No one is out to end BC this entire issue has been over blown and distorted. Obama should have left this one alone, it has backfired.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lioncarern
Woe unto those who call good evil, and evil good.
01:05 AM on 03/13/2012
The pill does not protect against any STD and unfortunately even condoms are not 100% effective against STD's. They only protect the area of the sexual organ covered by the condom. If there are lesions in other areas, one can contract an STD even with a condom,. Think genital herpes, genital warts, syphilitic canchroids. Not to mention all the STD's that can be contracted during oral sex, or anal sex, even with condom use. And not all condoms are the same in protection against viral std's. Lamb skin condoms for example can allow bacteria and viruses to be transmitted even though they can stop pregnancy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Watching rock grow
FE = Iron, and Female = Iron Male :)
11:41 AM on 03/11/2012
There is no such thing as religious freedom. The Constitution simply makes it law that religion is seperate from the state. People supporting this falsehood want relgious law to have equal or greater say in the nation.
08:37 PM on 03/15/2012
No, our laws are there to prevent our government from dictating religious beliefs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Watching rock grow
FE = Iron, and Female = Iron Male :)
11:14 AM on 03/16/2012
Hogwash! Our founders were establishing a new government had their intent been to establish one with respect towards a powerful church/state union. The Constitution would have established it and you wouldn’t be trying to convince me otherwise. Your position is false, showing no respect for our Constitution, the body of our law, and Americans from the founders to their descendants that have moved our nation forward from the beginning. You want to live in a Church/State holy nation there is Poland, and the Middle East move there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
glitterik
Mexico Daydreams ....
11:17 AM on 03/11/2012
Yes, please keep up your war on women! Make us all have as many babies as we can, and shut off all avenues of healthcare, birth control, child care, and food assistance! Close our public schools to keep our children as stupid as you need them to be. And by the way, it's been awhile since I've seen an Internet photo of President Obama with a bone in his nose, or a photo of a black Whitehouse with watermelons decorating the lawn. Or heard something about Michelle or the Obama daughters. Come on, Tea Publicans! Please don't stop now! You can stop in November. You won't be needed after then.
11:58 AM on 03/11/2012
dumb comment
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
charles847
12:52 PM on 03/11/2012
True comment. Your comment is the dumb one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Tykete
Theres only you and me and we just disagree
12:06 PM on 03/12/2012
Agreeg, bigblue, very dumb.
09:58 PM on 03/11/2012
A desperate plea. The Dems need an enemy to galvanize the troops, who along with rest of country, sees Obama as ineffectual at best, and dangerous at worst, and a failure for sure. Every issue you cited is false or grossly distorted. Good luck to you
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Tykete
Theres only you and me and we just disagree
12:07 PM on 03/12/2012
Well said katiebar....fanned