The University of Notre Dame won an important victory at the Supreme Court Monday morning when the Court acted in its case involving Obamacare's contraception mandate. Its "GVR" order (grant, vacate, remand) granted Notre Dame a "writ of certorari," vacated a lower court ruling against the school which would have forced it comply or face severe penalties, and remanded the case back to that lower court for reconsideration in light of the higher court's Hobby Lobby ruling last year.
In response, the Associated Press issued a terse, unbylined four-paragraph "We have to cover it, but we'll be damned if we attach any importance to it" report later that morning. After the jump, I'll compare AP's output to a far more accurate and thorough writeup by NewsBusters alum Matt Hadro at Catholic News Agency which recognized the potentially far-reaching implications of the court's move.
The AP dispatch was so brief and uninformative that I expected it to be updated later. But it never was, and here it is (presented in full for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes):
Readers will only see the importance of the court's move if they grasp impact of the distinction between Hobby Lobby and Notre Dame, namely that the former, as a for-profit corporation, was seen as more vulnerable to being forced into compliance with HHS's mandate. For less vulnerable not-for-profits, a court victory could well be a slam dunk — or, since we're talking about Notre Dame here, a touchdown. Oh, and that "compromise" should really called "an attempt to make something which isn't a compromise at all look like a compromise."
Now let's see excerpts, after getting past the football-oriented advocacy headline, from an example of real journalism displayed by NB alum Hadro (bolds are mine):
Touchdown! Notre Dame scores big on HHS mandate at Supreme Court
In a potentially groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court nullified a federal court ruling against the University of Notre Dame on the HHS contraception mandate and sent it back for reconsideration by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The university is “gratified” by the decision, said vice president of public affairs and communications, Paul J. Browne. They had requested the case be remanded by the Court in light of the Hobby Lobby decision last June.
“Notre Dame continues to challenge the federal mandate as an infringement on our fundamental right to the free exercise of our Catholic faith,” Browne said.
Notre Dame is one of well over 100 non-profit institutions to sue the federal government over a mandate requiring that employers provide health care plans covering contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can cause early abortions.
After the initial mandate was announced, hundreds of organizations, churches, and business across the country voiced their religious objection. The government subsequently developed an “accommodation,” under which non-profit employers who religiously objected to offering such coverage could send a notice of objection to a third party who would then offer the coverage.
Notre Dame and other plaintiffs have argued that they would still be violating their religious convictions by cooperating in such a way with the contraception coverage, which they believe to be immoral.
... Some observers said the Court’s Monday decision could foreshadow this religious freedom protection being reinforced more broadly for other religious employers as well.
The Becket Fund, which supported the university in a “friend of the court” brief, called Monday’s ruling “a major blow” to the mandate and a “strong signal” that the Court will uphold the religious freedom of institutions like Notre Dame in similar cases.
The ruling is all the more important because the university was the only non-profit organization without legal protection from the mandate, the Becket Fund added. The government was using the Seventh Circuit’s denial of an injunction to argue against other non-profit organizations who were suing, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor.
So the AP clearly gave a "potentially groundbreaking" move short shrift and made the Obama administration, with its false "compromise," look like the the reasonable party, when it is the one attempting to shred much of what's left of the First Amendment's freedom of religion. This is yet another example showing why characterizing the wire service as "The Administration's Press" is all too appropriate.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
