Injunction denial stands in Notre Dame contraception case



Dave Stafford for

A divided 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed denial of a temporary injunction sought by the University of Notre Dame to block enforcement of the contraception mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act.

Notre Dame failed to convince the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana to grant an injunction blocking enforcement of the mandate. The Affordable Car Act allows religious institutions such as Notre Dame to sign a form opting out of paying for contraception, but insurers must provide such services to women at no cost to them.

Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote for the majority joined by Judge David Hamilton in University of Notre Dame v. Kathleen Sebelius, 13-3853, that it was unclear what Notre Dame was asking the court to do, since a requirement that it provide a form opting out didn’t trigger provision of contraceptive services.

“If the government is entitled to require that female contraceptives be provided to women free of charge, we have trouble understanding how signing the form that declares Notre Dame’s authorized refusal to pay for contraceptives for its students or staff, and mailing the authorization documents to (insurers), which under federal law are obligated to pick up the tab, could be thought to ‘trigger’ the provision of female contraceptives.”

But Circuit Judge Joel Flaum would have reversed and granted the injunction, believing that Notre Dame has a strong case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a position on the likely outcome the majority cautioned against reaching in an interlocutory appeal.

“I conclude that Notre Dame has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and that it has met the other requirements for a preliminary injunction,” Flaum wrote. “I would therefore reverse the district court’s order denying relief.”


  1. Don’t want any care for the feti once they’re born or to pay for the prisons to house them when they grow up…. height of hypocrisy.

    • Some of ’em have a feti fetish. Anything to get attention. You’re right though, once they’re born they’re on their own, time to scramble.

      It is way past time to start taxing churches. Can’t really assess them a proper charge for all the dissension they sow or the wars they urge on or the children they’ve allowed to be molested by their priests but we can tax their property and income. They’ve had a free ride long enough. We have better ways of explaining natural phenomena now than listening to the suspect rants of some nickel dime shaman taking credit for the sun coming up. If they want their Bible codified into secular law, let ’em pay taxes and elect a few more crazies to the state legislature. Let their ideas stand or fall without appeal to magic or the supernatural.

      Judge Hamilton is a minister’s son and was a fine federal district judge in Indiana before sitting on the 7th Circuit appellate court. Notre Dame got about what they deserved. The time is now right for the 7th to knock down those cheesy crosses that grandstanding bull church tried to foist on Evansville last summer. Willful people, Evansville Westboro has stated that they are appealing their district court smackdown because they ‘might want to try it again’. What a great sense of community those folks have.

      • “It is way past time to start taxing churches.”

        Absolutely! The churchies seem to be spending more time in Court than they are in church. If they want to run government, then they need to participate in paying for it. If they were paying their “fair share”, this country would be fine without taking anything away from those sacred “job creators.”

        • So if we tax churches should they be allowed to use the public sidewalk for a display of crosses?

          • @ Martha,

            If it is a zoning issue, then how many crosses would be allowed for what time frame?

          • You remind me enoch of a kid who wants to know what he’s getting for Christmas on July 10.

            Pateince is a virtue my old ass son.


        • They should pay the police and fire protection portion of property taxes, the rest, IMO, they can be exempt from.

          If not they will start handing out RTL pamplets and rankings in the pews and reception areas and soiling our secular, platonic, serene town squares with their “art work”. Oh wait they already do!!!

          Sigh. Nevertheless for the reasons why we shouldn’t, see above.


  2. These are the issues that arise when the government mandates its morality over religious freedom.

    The Little Sisters of the Poor are fighting the same battle.

  3. One more effort to attack the faith by the Christ haters hiding behind their black dresses, suits, wingtips, keyboards, pajamas, bowties, smiles, and political appointments.

      • You should probably search “ACLU defends Christianity.” You may learn something.
        Btw, who are “Christ haters”? That sounds awfully anti-semitic to me, afterall the crucifixion was their doing, was it not?

        • And Satan believes in God.

          The ACLU will represent and celebrate pro-abortion values and homosexual values, but I assure you they do not represent or celebrate Christian values.

          Every cross on the sidewalk hating poster who loathes Christianity that I have crossed keyboards with has been an ACLU supporter.

          How in the world do you from “Christ haters” to “anti-Semitic?” Looks to me like you’re the one that jumped to blaming the Jews for crucifying Jesus. Not cool.

        • I’ve done my share of searching the ACLU and know it was founded to promote Communism.

Comments are closed.