A brief summary of the timeline following this suit
University of ND files a lawsuit against federal govt…read more here:
“Our abiding concern in both the original filing of May 21, 2012, and this re-filing has been Notre Dame’s freedom — and indeed the freedom of many religious organizations in this country — to live out a religious mission,” Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, said. “We have sought neither to prevent women from having access to services, nor even to prevent the government from providing them.”
Federal Court denies suit…read more here:
"In Friday’s strongly worded and highly critical decision, District Judge Philip Simon, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that it is Notre Dame’s prerogative to object to providing contraceptives on religious grounds. “But,” he added, “the law provides religious employers like Notre Dame an out by allowing it to file a certification saying it refuses to provide such services.”"
Notre Dame appeals to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago and 3 students step forward to intervene…read more here:
"Three students who say the University of Notre Dame should include contraception in its health care coverage are seeking to intervene in their school’s lawsuit challenging the federal government’s birth-control mandate."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alumna of Notre Dame and first hand observer of the hypocrisy of moral standard that is endemic to the institution, I want to whole-heartedly express my support for the intervention of the school's challenge to the contraception mandate. I applaud the audacity shown by these three students willing to stand with their convictions against the course of action taken by their University.
It appalls me that the institution sites the freedom to live its mission as its key argument against the federal mandate while consistently demanding burden of proof from victims of sexual assault crimes on its campus. It further appalls me that campus police offer courses for women teaching defense against sexual assault but don't offer courses on teaching men 'not to rape.' If the freedom to live its mission includes the acceptance of sexual deviance from its male population whiles sustaining a rape culture of cover-ups and denial, then the validity of its claim to exemption from the federal healthcare law should be severely scrutinized under the context from which the claim is made.
I understand that the issue of contraception and sexual assault in the case of this legal appeal is considered mutually exclusive; however in my opinion and from my experience both issues are indicative of the institution's legacy of denying women's civil rights on their campus.
