What are nice people like The Little Sisters of the Poor doing with Laura INGRAHAM. SCotUS reprieve
David BROCK's Blinded by the Right documents the vileness of Laura INGRAHAM, her erstwhile-whatever Dinesh D'SOUZA,
how at Dartmouth they and their circle posted flyers around campus outing people, INGRAHAM crawling on all fours on barroom floors and holding a gun to the head of one or another ex-boyfriend, COULTER living on cigarettes and wine, and all of them being the "Elves" network fueling the FAKE impeachment, DRUDGE hitting on BROCK. Of course, all of these somehow have claimed the right to be the voices of moral, righteous indignation against all Libs. And INGRAHAM converted to Catholicism back in the day when converting was all the rage in wingnut Spook circles, Opus Dei, Robert NOVAKula, FBI, but it has been a permanent fascination to me how NO trace of spirituality has been in evidence, NO change away from her vile mouth. An e-mail asking about this to The Little Sisters of the Poor got a reply that they didn't know who she is:
********QUOTE**********
http://www.lauraingraham.com/p/Jewelry/4-Way-Cross-Necklace/23125.html?dispid=214 
59.95
This is a replica of the one Laura wears.
All net proceeds go to support the work of The Little Sisters of the Poor.
Yearly Premium Member's Price: $53.96
(A savings of $6.00)
********UNQUOTE*********
*********QUOTE********
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Sisters_of_the_Poor
The Little Sisters of the Poor is a Roman Catholic religious institute for women. It was founded in the 19th century by Saint Jeanne Jugan near Rennes, France. Jugan felt the need to care for the many impoverished elderly who lined the streets of French towns and cities.
This led her to welcome an elderly lady into her home and the work of the Little Sisters of the Poor began. Gradually Jugan built up homes in and around Rennes. In 1843 the community's spiritual advisor declined to let Jugan head the institute and so she became an ordinary sister and model of humility. Jeanne Jugan was a helper to the elderly and disabled. She used to go on the streets of France to collect money for her organization. Once when Jugan begged a young man for money, he hit her on the face. She replied with calmness, "You gave that to me, now give me something for the elderly." The man was astounded by the sweetness of her reply and with all his heart he gave her all the money he had at that time.
Today the Little Sisters of the Poor serve in 31 countries around the world (including homes in Turkey, Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, Penang, New Zealand and Philippines), continuing in their original purpose of caring for the elderly. In addition to the Sisters' apostolate, a semi-contemplative emphasis is also maintained within the institute. Professed sisters therefore take a new religious name - usually a saint or someone associated with the institute, and wear a full religious habit consisting of a black dress and scapular, full grey veil and a white headband which covers the hair of the sister. In warmer climates/seasons a white habit/veil is worn by the sisters. They have grown from one woman helping one woman to one of the most successful religious organizations in the world. ...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/01/little_sisters_of_the_poor_case_supreme_court_grants_a_temporary_reprieve.single.html
[font size=5]Did Little Sisters of the Poor Win or Lose at the Supreme Court?
Um, it’s complicated.[/font]
By Emily Bazelon
The Supreme Court said late Friday that the Little Sisters of the Poor don’t have to fill out the Obamacare form for nonprofit religious groups seeking an accommodation to the contraception mandate. Instead, in order to get the exception, Little Sisters, which provides housing to elderly people in need, essentially has to provide the same information to the Department of Health of Human Services in a … form (or maybe it’s a letter?) the court devised itself. Got that? I know, it sounds weird, but that’s pretty much the upshot of the court’s three-sentence order, which will remain in effect until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rules in the case. And which “should not be construed as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits,” the order states.
If this is an odd compromise, well, it’s also a tricky case. Liberal commentators have said otherwise: There’s no serious problem of religious freedom here, the New York Times editorial page and Slate’s Amanda Marcotte argue, because all Obamacare asks religious organizations to do is sign a form certifying that they don’t provide contraception—as they’ve already made clear. These cases are about a single two-page form. But there is no clear answer to what signing that form means—or even, rather bizarrely, what concrete effect doing so has.
There are about 20 lawsuits bubbling up over this around the country, with religious groups saying the form is the gateway to authorizing contraception coverage, one they don’t want to walk through. The government responds that actually, for some of the groups, signing the form will mean nothing at all. Not signing, though, subjects them all to hefty fines. The lower courts are split over these cases, and so far most of them have actually sided with the religious groups rather than the government. And so, understandably, first Justice Sonia Sotomayor on her own and now the full court have hit the pause button at this preliminary stage, when what’s at issue isn’t who wins but whether to delay the fines while the courts wrestle with the underlying questions. These cases involve the kind of tangled facts that take time to sort out. In the meantime, it doesn’t make sense to impose big fines on groups like Little Sisters. ....
Honestly, isn’t this like a picture you can look at and see two entirely different things? One view is that asking Little Sisters of the Poor to sign this form is like asking a Quaker to state his or her opposition to fighting a war in order to be considered a conscientious objector. You can’t argue that saying you refuse to fight itself burdens your freedom of religious expression because it means someone else will go to war. But maybe that’s the wrong way to look at it. The alternate view is that demanding Little Sisters of the Poor sign this form to avoid a big fine compels the group to ask someone else to sin on its behalf. If you see this as the group opening the door to getting their employees birth control, which they have a genuine religious objection to doing, then maybe it’s not fair to ask them to do that.
I don’t know about you, but I can see it both ways. Important note: Even if you choose the second view and think this Obamacare regulation does burden the exercise of religious freedom, you haven’t decided the case yet. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act says you must then decide whether there is a compelling reason for the government to impose the burden in the first place. On this one, to me the answer is a clear yes, because of the tangible and significant health benefits for women that come covering contraception.
You can argue, as the government has tried to before the Supreme Court, that this means there is no religious burden at stake for Little Sisters. No birth control, no lawsuit. But I would also like to know what the point is of making the group sign this Obamacare form? Why push them to authorize contraceptive care, even theoretically, if the whole thing is an empty exercise? How can the government show it has a compelling interest in making nothing happen? Or as Daniel Blomberg, a lawyer for the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Little Sisters, put it to me over the phone, “When does the government force you to either engage in meaningless speech or pay millions of dollars?” Blomberg also argues that Little Sisters can’t know for sure it’s in the clear, because the government hasn’t entirely given up on enforcing the contraception mandate in this case. Its lawyers told one judge that the Obama administration "continues to consider potential options to fully and appropriately extend the consumer protections provided by the regulations to self-insured church plans." ....
*************UNQUOTE*************
= new reply since forum marked as read
