Podcasts about zubik

This Day in Legal History: Mutiny on the BountyOn April 28, 1789, one of the most famous acts of rebellion at sea occurred aboard the HMS Bounty. Captain William Bligh and 18 loyal crew members were forcibly set adrift in the Pacific Ocean by mutineers led by Fletcher Christian. The incident exposed deep tensions over leadership, working conditions, and authority in the Royal Navy. British law at the time treated mutiny as a capital offense, reflecting the critical importance of discipline aboard ships. After the mutiny, an intense search for the culprits began, with some mutineers eventually captured and returned to England to stand trial.The ensuing court-martial proceedings offered early insight into naval justice and the balancing act between maintaining strict command and recognizing crew grievances. Defendants argued that Bligh's harsh leadership provoked the uprising, but the Admiralty was unwavering in its stance against insubordination. Of those captured, three were found guilty and hanged, while others were acquitted or pardoned. The legal handling of the mutiny reinforced the severe consequences for undermining maritime authority. It also prompted discussions about humane treatment of sailors, subtly influencing later reforms in naval discipline.The Mutiny on the Bounty became a lasting symbol in both legal and cultural history, illustrating how law functions as both a tool of control and a response to the realities of human endurance and dissent at sea.Seven Democratic senators on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee have requested information from the Justice Department regarding recent changes within its civil rights division under President Donald Trump's administration. In a letter sent Friday, they expressed concern over the reassignment of several career officials, suggesting these moves could be an attempt to pressure staff into leaving and shift the division's enforcement priorities. Since Trump's return to office and the appointment of Pam Bondi as Attorney General, the department has paused investigations into police misconduct, launched a gun rights investigation in Los Angeles, and altered its approach to transgender rights cases. It has also opened investigations into antisemitism related to pro-Palestinian protests at colleges. The senators emphasized the importance of nonpartisan career staff in maintaining the integrity of civil rights enforcement. About a dozen senior attorneys specializing in voting, police, and disability rights were among those reassigned. The Justice Department has not yet commented on the senators' letter.Democratic senators question US Justice Department on civil rights changes | ReutersThe U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced that federal law enforcement agencies raided a nightclub in Colorado Springs, arresting over 100 individuals who were in the U.S. illegally. The operation resulted in 114 arrests out of more than 200 people present at the venue, making it one of the largest immigration-related raids since President Donald Trump's second term began. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the raid also led to the seizure of cocaine, methamphetamine, and "pink cocaine," and two individuals were arrested on outstanding warrants. Bondi mentioned links to gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13, although she did not directly confirm whether those arrested were affiliated with them. The DEA noted that occupants were given multiple warnings before the raid was executed. This action is part of an intensifying crackdown on illegal immigration under Trump's renewed immigration policies. Separately, ICE recently reported nearly 800 immigration-related arrests in Florida during a multi-agency operation.Over 100 migrants in the US illegally arrested in Colorado nightclub | ReutersThe Supreme Court has requested additional briefing in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's mandate that insurers cover preventive services, like cancer screenings, at no cost. The justices specifically want the parties to address whether the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the legal authority to appoint members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which advises on covered treatments. During arguments on April 21, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the power to remove officials necessarily implies the power to appoint them, an issue the lower court had not considered. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the task force's structure violated the Constitution's appointments clause, arguing its members must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Trump administration contends the task force members are merely "inferior officers" under the HHS Secretary's control. The case also involves objections by Texas businesses and residents to mandatory coverage of HIV prevention drugs, claiming unconstitutional imposition by unelected officials. Supplemental briefs are due by May 5, and while rare, this is not the first time the Court has asked for more information after oral arguments, as seen in past cases like Zubik v. Burwell and Citizens United v. FEC.Supreme Court Orders New Briefs After Obamacare Case Argued (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik reflects on the passing of Pope Francis.

Cześć! Pewnie zastanawiasz się dlaczego słyszysz inny głos i widzisz inną osobę. Już mówię! Ale najpierw się przedstawię! Jestem Aga i towarzyszę Asi w produkcji i promocji podcastu Napędzani Marzeniami od dobrych 3,5 roku. Dziś nagrywamy 100 odcinek, a z tej okazji mała niespodzianka. Dla Was i dla Asi. Asię Borucką znacie jako prowadzącą, ale […]

Thirty years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. It was a monumental event in religious liberty law at the time, and it remains part of an even more complex legal landscape of religious exemptions today. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at the standard set by RFRA and discuss how the law has been used in cases dealing with issues ranging from sacramental drug use to application of health insurance regulations. They discuss the non-controversial applications of RFRA, too, and the search for win-win solutions to complicated situations that arise in a religiously pluralistic society.   SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The need for and passage of RFRA Learn more about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on BJC's website: BJConline.org/RFRA Holly wrote a column on RFRA for Word&Way's “A Public Witness” newsletter, and you can read it here: Revisiting RFRA 30 years later Read the text of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act at this link. Amanda mentioned these two “high water mark” cases in the period before 1990: Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The 1990 Employment Division v. Smith is the case often known as the “peyote case.” We played audio from Justice Antonin Scalia reading the opinion of the Court from the bench, which you can listen to and read at this link. Watch the signing ceremony for RFRA on November 16, 1993, at this link on the YouTube channel of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Holly mentioned this printed resource available on our website, produced for the 20th anniversary of RFRA.    Segment 2 (starting at 14:16): Twists and turns of RFRA over 30 years Amanda mentioned the 1997 case that struck down RFRA as applied to the states: City of Boerne v. Flores. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) has the same standard as RFRA, but it has not been the subject of so many controversies. Holly and Amanda mentioned three other RFRA cases: Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal in 2006 (also known as the “UDV” case), Tanzin v. Tanvir in 2020, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores in 2014. Holly wrote about the application of RFRA to corporations in light of the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Examining RFRA in light of Hobby Lobby J. Brent Walker, former executive director of BJC at the time, wrote about the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Exploring Hobby Lobby's narrow victory   Segment 3 (starting at 32:28): The state of RFRA today Here are additional resources from BJC providing more context on the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Podcasts: S1, Ep. 06: Stay-at-home orders, religious freedom and RFRA (2020) S1, Ep. 12: Not a charm: Contraceptive mandate returns to the Supreme Court for the third time (2020) S3, Ep. 03: What's going on with religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates? (2021) Video: Watch this video of former BJC General Counsel Oliver “Buzz” Thomas discussing the origins of RFRA Resources from BJC on cases: Zubik v. Burwell (2016) Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) Additional reading: Do states need religious freedom legislation? By J. Brent Walker, 2015 Contraceptive mandate oral arguments shed light on underreported issues by Holly Hollman, 2014 RFRA's constitutionality called into question by J. Brent Walker, 2014 RFRA at 20: A retrospective by Holly Hollman, 2013 Remembering the origins of RFRA by J. Brent Walker, 2013 Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

Every good citizen should come to understand religious liberty. Not just lawyers, not just people who want to go fight about it—fundamentally, it's a core part of the American commitment. What does it look like to be “on offense” for religious liberty? From battling foster care shutdowns and COVID-era mandates to preserving parental rights in education, Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of The Becket Fund, joins Kevin to discuss the everyday ramifications for religious liberty lawsuits. Mark Rienzi is the president and CEO of The Becket Fund and a Professor of Law at the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, where he is co-director of the Center for Religious Liberty and has served as a Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He teaches constitutional law, religious liberty, and evidence, and has been voted Teacher of the Year three times by the Law School's Student Bar Association. With the team at Becket, Mark has litigated and won an uninterrupted string of important First Amendment cases at the U.S. Supreme Court including Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012), Little Sisters of the Poor (2013), McCullen v. Coakley (2014), Hobby Lobby (2014), Wheaton College (2014), Holt v. Hobbs (2015), Zubik v. Burwell (2016), Our Lady of Guadalupe (2020), Little Sisters of the Poor (2020), Diocese of Brooklyn/Agudath Israel (2020), and Fulton v. Philadelphia (2021). Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ali Kilmartin - Senior Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) - is our guest at Courageous Leadership with Virginia Prodan Podcast. Alison (Ali) M. Kilmartin serves as senior counsel and director of the attorney network with Alliance Defending Freedom, where she is a member of the Allied Legal Affairs Team. Kilmartin recruits, engages with, and strategically deploys the over 4,400 attorneys aligned with ADF's mission to protect and promote life, religious liberty, free speech, marriage and family, and parental rights. Attorneys in ADF's network have played important roles in hundreds of precedent-setting matters and 60 victories at the U.S. Supreme Court, including serving as lead or co-counsel alongside ADF staff attorneys in 12 Supreme Court cases. From 2018 to 2021, Kilmartin was a senior executive service appointee in the Trump administration, serving the U.S. Department of Labor as deputy chief of staff in the Office of the Secretary, and then as deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. She also had a detail to the Executive Office of the President at the White House. Prior to joining Labor, Kilmartin was a trial and appellate litigator for just under a decade, including in the U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions. In 2014, Kilmartin successfully represented a number of Catholic entities challenging the Obamacare contraceptive mandate, which ultimately resulted in the win in Zubik v. Burwell. Kilmartin earned her J.D. summa cum laude and was first in her class at Penn State Law. She is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court, and several federal district and appellate courts. Her message will encourage and motivate you to act as our faith is under attack. And - We am here to help you during this time in America.  Our faith is under attack indeed today in America. I had been in your place and God helped me to fight and win as my faith was under attack in Socialist Romania and now in America. You too can learn how to do that too - just apply for this special - individual or group training; - here: https://lnkd.in/e6JP4KA Order your signed copy(s) of my memoir #SavingMyAssassin - to learned that with God to accomplish your mission in life  - purchase it here: https://lnkd.in/ecQnD6X Invite Virginia Prodan to speak at your events : https://lnkd.in/eQwj4R2u Subscribe for FREE - Our Courageous #Leadership with Virginia Prodan #Podcast on Spotify; PodBean; Apple Podcast , Edify Podcast Network - here : https://lnkd.in/g_5nqzJj                Follow - Virginia Prodan on : Twitter : https://lnkd.in/gyDX5isA Facebook: https://lnkd.in/g7ytqY9y LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/gsFnMcsX Instagram: https://lnkd.in/gWYpEifa Youtube: https://lnkd.in/eJXWPHU Courageous Leadership with Virginia Prodan #Podcast at: Edifi : https://lnkd.in/g_5nqzJj   Alliance Defending Freedom.  Ali Kilmartin 

Przed Dniem Nauczyciela idziemy do szkoły i oddajemy głos nauczycielom. - Po 10 latach pracy mam już pensję z trójką z przodu. Dorabiam, ale stać mnie tylko na wynajem pokoju - opowiada Paulinie Nodzyńskiej wuefista Artur Lauterbach. - Nie wierzę już w protesty, strajki. Jedyną drogą, żeby w oświacie się coś zmieniło, są odejścia nauczycieli z zawodu - dodaje anglistka Judyta Rudnicka. Dyrektorka SP nr 103 Danuta Kozakiewicz przyznaje, że wciąż nie udało jej się skompletować kadry. O rekordowym braku nauczycieli w warszawskich szkołach Małgorzata Zubik rozmawia z przewodniczącą komisji edukacji w Radzie Warszawy Dorotą Łobodą. I choć sytuacja jest trudna, nie chcemy zapomnieć o rzeczach podstawowych. Na koniec na pytanie „Po co nam szkoła?” odpowiada Iga Kazimierczyk, nauczycielka i prezeska fundacji Przestrzeń dla Edukacji.

The Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh is looking for qualified Catholic men to form a new class of permanent deacons.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The doctrine of the “ministerial exception” and the latest installment in the ongoing saga of challenges to the contraceptive mandate capped off this year's Supreme Court term. Amanda and Holly give their analysis of those key cases impacting religious liberty and discuss how they interact with other decisions from this blockbuster year. In this season finale, Amanda and Holly also look back at our entire season of Respecting Religion and invite you to continue the conversation. Segment 1: The ministerial exception decision (Starting at 00:40) Amanda mentioned this New York Times article rounding up this year's Supreme Court term by Adam Liptak: In a Term Full of Major Cases, the Supreme Court Tacked to the Center. Starting at 4:47, the cases regarding the “ministerial exception” are Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel. You can read Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion and the concurrence and dissents at this link. Amanda and Holly talked about oral arguments in the case on Episode 13: Who's a ‘minister' and who gets to decide? Learn more about the 2012 Hosanna-Tabor decision that was a precursor to the latest ministerial exception cases at BJConline.org/hosanna-tabor. Read Holly's statement on the decision in this post on BJC's website. Read Amanda's Twitter thread reacting to both decisions issued the same day at this link. Holly and Amanda discussed the decision in the Title VII cases in Episode 17: A landmark case for LGBTQ rights: What's next for religious liberty? Read and listen to the NPR story by Tom Gjelten that featured Holly Hollman: Recent SCOTUS Decisions On Religion Open Up New Questions.   Segment 2: The contraceptive mandate decision (starting at 22:47) The Trump v. Pennsylvania case regarding the contraceptive mandate was consolidated with Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. You can read the decision by Justice Clarence Thomas and the concurring and dissenting opinions at this link. Amanda and Holly talked about the oral arguments in this case in Episode 12: Not a charm: Contraceptive mandate returns to the Supreme Court for the third time. The “Affordable Care Act” is often referred to as the “ACA.”  Holly mentioned BJC's brief with Professor Douglas Laycock in the Zubik v. Burwell case – learn more about that and read the brief at BJConline.org/Zubik. For more on this case, including reaction from Holly, read this post on BJC's website. Segment 3: Looking back at season one (starting at 37:13) See a list of all 20 episodes of Respecting Religion by visiting BJConline.org/RespectingReligion.

Mon. June 29th-Hour 1. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco on St. Junipero Serra as statues of the saint have torn down. Bishop David Zubik on a parish for Black Catholics in the Diocese of Pittburgh. Glen’s Story Corner All show notes at Hour 1-Archbishop Cordileone on St. Junipero Serra, Bishop Zubik on parish for Black Catholics - This podcast produced by Relevant Radio

19-431 LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR V. PENNSYLVANIA Since 2011, federal courts have repeatedly considered whether forcing religious objectors to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Over and over again, this Court has reviewed these cases on an emergency basis or on the merits. Yet it has never definitively resolved the RFRA dispute. In 2016, an eight-Justice Court in Zubik v. Burwell did not reach the RFRA question and instead remanded for the parties to try to reach a resolution, on the evident assumption that the executive branch possessed the power to provide broader accommodations and/or exemptions. After months of negotiations (and an intervening election), the agencies finally agreed to promulgate new rules providing a broader exemption, seemingly bringing an end to this long-running dispute. Those new rules were challenged, however, by several states, resulting in a nationwide injunction on the theory that RFRA and the Affordable Care Act not only do not require, but do not even allow, the religious exemption rules. That nationwide injunction has stagnated other cases, and it conflicts with the judgments of many courts that have issued final orders affirmatively requiring comparable exemptions under RFRA. The rights of religious objectorsincluding the Little Sisters' right to defend an exemption-remain very much at issue. The questions presented are: Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court? Whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage? 19-454 TRUMP V. PENNSYLVANIA The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 18001 et seq., requires many group health plans and health-insurance issuers that offer group or individual health coverage to provide coverage for preventive services, including women's preventive care, without cost-sharing. See 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a). Guidelines and regulations implementing that requirement promulgated in 2011 by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury mandated that such entities cover contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The mandate exempted churches, and subsequent rulemaking established an accommodation for certain other entities with religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage. In October 2017, the agencies promulgated interim final rules expanding the exemption to a broad range of entities with sincere religious or moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage. In November 2018, after considering comments solicited on the interim rules, the agencies promulgated final rules expanding the exemption. The questions presented are as follows: Whether the agencies had statutory authority under the ACA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate. Whether the agencies' decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules-which were issued after notice and comment-invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 701 et seq. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

The controversy over the contraceptive mandate was back at the U.S. Supreme Court this week. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman react to the live arguments in Trump v. Pennsylvania and give the history of the contraceptive mandate, including how the Hobby Lobby and Zubik cases led to this one. They also share audio clips from key moments in the arguments and discuss what's at stake for religious liberty when religious accommodations turn into “all-or-nothing” claims on both sides. Segment 1: The history of the contraceptive mandate (starting at 00:40) For more resources on the 2016 Zubik v. Burwell case (also known as the “Little Sisters of the Poor” case) and to read our brief written with Douglas Laycock, visit BJConline.org/Zubik.   Segment 2: Breaking down the arguments in Trump v. Pennsylvania (Starting at 21:33) To listen to the oral arguments in Trump v. Pennsylvania from May 6, 2020, visit this link from C-SPAN. The excerpts Holly and Amanda used in the podcast can be found at the following time in the oral arguments: The clip of Chief Justice John Roberts is from around 27:44 into the arguments The clip of Justice Stephen Breyer is from around 35:00 into the arguments The clip of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is from around 32:44 into the arguments The clip of Justice Sonia Sotomayor is from around 40:00 into the arguments   Segment 3: What else is happening in our world (starting at 39:30) Next week's consolidated cases on the ministerial exception are known as Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morissey-Berru. Amanda and Holly discussed the issue in episode 5 of this podcast series during the second segment. See BJC's page of coronavirus articles and podcasts at BJConline.org/COVID-19. To read stories we shared on Giving Tuesday Now from members of our community making a difference, visit BJConline.org/givingtuesdaynow-2020.

The controversy over the contraceptive mandate was back at the U.S. Supreme Court this week. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman react to the live arguments in Trump v. Pennsylvania and give the history of the contraceptive mandate, including how the Hobby Lobby and Zubik cases led to this one. They also share audio clips from key moments in the arguments and discuss what’s at stake for religious liberty when religious accommodations turn into “all-or-nothing” claims on both sides. The post Ep. 12: Not a charm: Contraceptive mandate returns to the Supreme Court for the third time appeared first on BJC.

Bishop David A. Zubik, as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, talks about the recent clergy abuse in the Church. He also talks about his 5-point action plan that explains what the Church has done and continues to do to repent for the abuse that some people experienced in the Church. Let us remember that when we see Jesus in every broken heart, then we will be a renewed Church. (Recorded on August 23, 2019)This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Bishop David A. Zubik, as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, reflects on a conversation he had with a 2nd grader who asked him if he missed kissing. Bishop Zubik answered the boy by saying that he kisses every day because when he extends his hands and kisses the altar before the Mass, the action is to represent the humility and love of Christ.(Recorded on September 13, 2019)This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Bishop David A. Zubik, as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, reflects on victory over death. As a child, Bishop Zubik contracted measles, slipped into a coma, and almost died. Bishop Zubik challenges us to fast from the restless "why" questions during Lent and to trust that God has a plan for all of our confusion and hardships.(Recorded on March 8, 2019)This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Bishop David A. Zubik, as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, talks about the recent attacks of violence and expressions of hate and derision towards Pittsburgh police, and how the police who stood against these attacks are true heroes of service. Let us pray in thanksgiving for those who run towards danger in order to protect us from harm. (Recorded on July 26, 2019)This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Bishop David A. Zubik, as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, highlights the importance of upholding the dignity of every human life. He shares two stories focusing on the tragic practices of slavery and the death penalty. In both stories, the outspokenness of one individual led the Church to look at “the right to life” with a broad eye.(Recorded on January 16, 2019)This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Bishop David A. Zubik, as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, challenges us to take up Pope Francis' call to look beyond ourselves and help those in need. He cites examples of our Holy Father. He also points out how the Diocese of Pittsburgh has been helping the desolate of Peru since the 1950's and 60's.(Recorded on October 4, 2019)This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Bishop David A. Zubik, as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, encourages us to view Easter as a way of life beyond a liturgical season. We should view it as more a "verb" than a "noun" and make our own the exclamatory prayer, "Easter us, O Lord!" as did many of those who first encountered the Risen Lord! (Recorded on May 21, 2019)This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Bishop David A. Zubik, as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, exhorts us to take a stand against abortion. He focuses particularly on the new law in the state of New York and the proposal in Virginia which would legalize late-term abortions and infanticide. May we defend with renewed vigor the weak, handicapped, and most defenseless among us.(Recorded on February 8, 2019)This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Bishop David A. Zubik, as Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, highlights the importance of apologizing and making amends. He shares how a stranger approached him and apologized for saying mean-spirited things about him to others. Bishop Zubik was inspired by her humility and forgave her. Let us consider the people who may need an apology from us. (Recorded on April 8, 2019)This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Today, you'll hear our Q&A with Bishop David Zubik at an event we recently hosted. You'll hear Bishop Zubik share his thoughts on how unity can be possible across denominational lines, how to lead people with opposing views, how to impact the next generation, how to show people you're living your faith, how to surround yourself with people who will be honest with you, and how we can pray for the Bishop. Download the show notes at: http://www.L3Leadership.org/episode194. Listen to our Bishop Zubik's talk in episode #193 at http://www.l3leadership.org/episode193. To listen to our interview with Bishop Zubik, go to episode #166: http://www.l3leadership.org/episode166 Bishop David Zubik's Bio: Bishop David A. Zubik was born September 4, 1949, in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, to the late Stanley and Susan (Raskosky) Zubik. He attended Saint Stanislaus Elementary School and Saint Veronica High School, both in Ambridge, before entering Saint Paul Seminary in Pittsburgh. He received an undergraduate degree at Duquesne University in 1971 and went on to study at Saint Mary Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland, where he earned a degree in theology in 1975. Bishop Zubik was ordained a priest on May 3, 1975, by Bishop Vincent M. Leonard at Saint Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh. Bishop Zubik served as Parochial Vicar of Sacred Heart Parish, Shadyside, until 1980. He was then assigned as Vice Principal of Quigley Catholic High School in Baden as well as Chaplain to the Sisters of Saint Joseph Motherhouse and Chaplain to the students at Mount Gallitzin Academy. At the same time, he began graduate studies at Duquesne University where he earned a master’s degree in education administration in 1982. He served in the role of adjunct spiritual director at Saint Paul Seminary from 1984 through 1991 and associate spiritual director at Saint Vincent Seminary, Latrobe, from 1989 through 1996. In 1987, Bishop Zubik was appointed Administrative Secretary to then-Pittsburgh Bishop Anthony J. Bevilacqua, who later became the Cardinal Archbishop of Philadelphia. In 1988, he was appointed Administrative Secretary and Master of Ceremonies to then-Pittsburgh Bishop Donald W. Wuerl (now Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, DC), where he served until 1991, when he began his service as Director of Clergy Personnel. In 1995, he was named Associate General Secretary and Chancellor of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and on January 1, 1996, became Vicar General and General Secretary—a position in which he served until his appointment as the Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay. Bishop Zubik was consecrated a bishop on April 6, 1997, at Saint Paul Cathedral and was appointed auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. On October 10, 2003, the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, named the Most Reverend David A. Zubik as the Eleventh Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay. Bishop Zubik was installed as Bishop on December 12, 2003. On July 18, 2007, he was named by Pope Benedict XVI as the Twelfth Bishop of Pittsburgh. He was installed at Saint Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh on September 28, 2007. Subscribe to our podcast on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/l3-leadership-podcast-leadership-entrepreneurship-business/id495751888?mt=2 Listen on Tunein: http://tun.in/piVUO Subscribe to our podcast on Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/learning-to-lead-podcast Subscribe on Google Play: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iehhmsctsgmvmoyvhxsv6yfzoiu L3 Leadership exists to build and develop a community of leaders that grow to their maximum potential, develop the courage to pursue their dreams, and to become great leaders in their families, communities, cities, nations, and their world. If you have an idea for a future podcast you would like to hear or a leader you would like me to Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/l3leadership)

In this episode of the L3 Leadership podcast, you will hear David Zubik, Catholic Diocese Bishop of Pittsburgh, speak on 4 characteristics every leader must develop. Download the show notes at: http://www.L3Leadership.org/episode193. Listen to our Q&A with Bishop Zubik in episode #194 at http://www.l3leadership.org/episode194. To listen to our interview with Bishop Zubik, go to episode #166: http://www.l3leadership.org/episode166 Bishop David Zubik's Bio: Bishop David A. Zubik was born September 4, 1949, in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, to the late Stanley and Susan (Raskosky) Zubik. He attended Saint Stanislaus Elementary School and Saint Veronica High School, both in Ambridge, before entering Saint Paul Seminary in Pittsburgh. He received an undergraduate degree at Duquesne University in 1971 and went on to study at Saint Mary Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland, where he earned a degree in theology in 1975. Bishop Zubik was ordained a priest on May 3, 1975, by Bishop Vincent M. Leonard at Saint Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh. Bishop Zubik served as Parochial Vicar of Sacred Heart Parish, Shadyside, until 1980. He was then assigned as Vice Principal of Quigley Catholic High School in Baden as well as Chaplain to the Sisters of Saint Joseph Motherhouse and Chaplain to the students at Mount Gallitzin Academy. At the same time, he began graduate studies at Duquesne University where he earned a master’s degree in education administration in 1982. He served in the role of adjunct spiritual director at Saint Paul Seminary from 1984 through 1991 and associate spiritual director at Saint Vincent Seminary, Latrobe, from 1989 through 1996. In 1987, Bishop Zubik was appointed Administrative Secretary to then-Pittsburgh Bishop Anthony J. Bevilacqua, who later became the Cardinal Archbishop of Philadelphia. In 1988, he was appointed Administrative Secretary and Master of Ceremonies to then-Pittsburgh Bishop Donald W. Wuerl (now Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, DC), where he served until 1991, when he began his service as Director of Clergy Personnel. In 1995, he was named Associate General Secretary and Chancellor of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and on January 1, 1996, became Vicar General and General Secretary—a position in which he served until his appointment as the Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay. Bishop Zubik was consecrated a bishop on April 6, 1997, at Saint Paul Cathedral and was appointed auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. On October 10, 2003, the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, named the Most Reverend David A. Zubik as the Eleventh Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay. Bishop Zubik was installed as Bishop on December 12, 2003. On July 18, 2007, he was named by Pope Benedict XVI as the Twelfth Bishop of Pittsburgh. He was installed at Saint Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh on September 28, 2007. Subscribe to our podcast on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/l3-leadership-podcast-leadership-entrepreneurship-business/id495751888?mt=2 Listen on Tunein: http://tun.in/piVUO Subscribe to our podcast on Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/learning-to-lead-podcast Subscribe on Google Play: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iehhmsctsgmvmoyvhxsv6yfzoiu L3 Leadership exists to build and develop a community of leaders that grow to their maximum potential, develop the courage to pursue their dreams, and to become great leaders in their families, communities, cities, nations, and their world. If you have an idea for a future podcast you would like to hear or a leader you would like me to interview, e-mail me at dougsmith@l3leadership.org.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/l3leadership)

In this episode you're going to hear part 2 of our interview wiith Bishop David Zubik, the Catholic Bishop of Pittsburgh. This episode is a lightening round which consists of a bunch of fun questions to ask leaders. You will hear Bishop Zubik share some of his favorite books, his favorite stories in the Bible, his Favorite Saints, what he wants to be remembered for, and more. If you'd like to go back and listen to our longer interview, go to episode #166. To see the notes and ways to connect with Doug Smith, go to the show notes at L3Leadership.org/episode167. You can listen to part one of our interview in episode #166 at http://www.l3leadership.org/episide166. Subscribe to our podcast on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/l3-leadership-podcast-leadership-entrepreneurship-business/id495751888?mt=2 Subscribe to our podcast on Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/learning-to-lead-podcast Subscribe on Google Play: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iehhmsctsgmvmoyvhxsv6yfzoiu Bishop Zubik's Bio: Bishop David A. Zubik was born September 4, 1949, in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, to the late Stanley and Susan (Raskosky) Zubik. He attended Saint Stanislaus Elementary School and Saint Veronica High School, both in Ambridge, before entering Saint Paul Seminary in Pittsburgh. He received an undergraduate degree at Duquesne University in 1971 and went on to study at Saint Mary Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland, where he earned a degree in theology in 1975. Bishop Zubik was ordained a priest on May 3, 1975, by Bishop Vincent M. Leonard at Saint Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh. Bishop Zubik served as Parochial Vicar of Sacred Heart Parish, Shadyside, until 1980. He was then assigned as Vice Principal of Quigley Catholic High School in Baden as well as Chaplain to the Sisters of Saint Joseph Motherhouse and Chaplain to the students at Mount Gallitzin Academy. At the same time, he began graduate studies at Duquesne University where he earned a master’s degree in education administration in 1982. He served in the role of adjunct spiritual director at Saint Paul Seminary from 1984 through 1991 and associate spiritual director at Saint Vincent Seminary, Latrobe, from 1989 through 1996. In 1987, Bishop Zubik was appointed Administrative Secretary to then-Pittsburgh Bishop Anthony J. Bevilacqua, who later became the Cardinal Archbishop of Philadelphia. In 1988, he was appointed Administrative Secretary and Master of Ceremonies to then-Pittsburgh Bishop Donald W. Wuerl (now Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, DC), where he served until 1991, when he began his service as Director of Clergy Personnel. In 1995, he was named Associate General Secretary and Chancellor of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and on January 1, 1996, became Vicar General and General Secretary—a position in which he served until his appointment as the Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay. Bishop Zubik was consecrated a bishop on April 6, 1997, at Saint Paul Cathedral and was appointed auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. On October 10, 2003, the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, named the Most Reverend David A. Zubik as the Eleventh Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay. Bishop Zubik was installed as Bishop on December 12, 2003. On July 18, 2007, he was named by Pope Benedict XVI as the Twelfth Bishop of Pittsburgh. He was installed at Saint Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh on September 28, 2007. Bishop Zubik currently serves on the following committees: USCCB Divine Worship Committee USCCB Domestic Justice and Human Development Committee USCCB Protection of Children and Young People Committee USCCB Catholic Communications Campaign Subcommittee Catholic-Jewish Dialogue of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Bishops’ Committee, Teens Encounter Christ (TEC) ConferenSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/l3leadership)

In this episode you're going to hear our interview with Bishop David Zubik, the Catholic Bishop of Pittsburgh. It's a fascinating interview. We talk about his journey to becoming a Bishop when he actually wanted to become a lawyer, his advice to young leaders, when to speak up for injustice, and more! To see the notes and ways to connect with Doug Smith, go to the show notes at L3Leadership.org/episode166. You can listen to part two of our interview in episode #167 at http://www.l3leadership.org/episide167 Subscribe to the L3 Leadership Podcast: Subscribe to our podcast on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/l3-leadership-podcast-leadership-entrepreneurship-business/id495751888?mt=2 Subscribe to our podcast on Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/learning-to-lead-podcast Subscribe on Google Play: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iehhmsctsgmvmoyvhxsv6yfzoiu Bishop Zubik's Bio: Bishop David A. Zubik was born September 4, 1949, in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, to the late Stanley and Susan (Raskosky) Zubik. He attended Saint Stanislaus Elementary School and Saint Veronica High School, both in Ambridge, before entering Saint Paul Seminary in Pittsburgh. He received an undergraduate degree at Duquesne University in 1971 and went on to study at Saint Mary Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland, where he earned a degree in theology in 1975. Bishop Zubik was ordained a priest on May 3, 1975, by Bishop Vincent M. Leonard at Saint Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh. Bishop Zubik served as Parochial Vicar of Sacred Heart Parish, Shadyside, until 1980. He was then assigned as Vice Principal of Quigley Catholic High School in Baden as well as Chaplain to the Sisters of Saint Joseph Motherhouse and Chaplain to the students at Mount Gallitzin Academy. At the same time, he began graduate studies at Duquesne University where he earned a master’s degree in education administration in 1982. He served in the role of adjunct spiritual director at Saint Paul Seminary from 1984 through 1991 and associate spiritual director at Saint Vincent Seminary, Latrobe, from 1989 through 1996. In 1987, Bishop Zubik was appointed Administrative Secretary to then-Pittsburgh Bishop Anthony J. Bevilacqua, who later became the Cardinal Archbishop of Philadelphia. In 1988, he was appointed Administrative Secretary and Master of Ceremonies to then-Pittsburgh Bishop Donald W. Wuerl (now Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, DC), where he served until 1991, when he began his service as Director of Clergy Personnel. In 1995, he was named Associate General Secretary and Chancellor of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and on January 1, 1996, became Vicar General and General Secretary—a position in which he served until his appointment as the Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay. Bishop Zubik was consecrated a bishop on April 6, 1997, at Saint Paul Cathedral and was appointed auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. On October 10, 2003, the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, named the Most Reverend David A. Zubik as the Eleventh Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay. Bishop Zubik was installed as Bishop on December 12, 2003. On July 18, 2007, he was named by Pope Benedict XVI as the Twelfth Bishop of Pittsburgh. He was installed at Saint Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh on September 28, 2007. Bishop Zubik currently serves on the following committees: USCCB Divine Worship Committee USCCB Domestic Justice and Human Development Committee USCCB Protection of Children and Young People Committee USCCB Catholic Communications Campaign Subcommittee Catholic-Jewish Dialogue of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Bishops’ Committee, Teens Encounter Christ (TEC) Conference Board of Trustees, Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington, DC Chairman, PilgrimSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/l3leadership)

From the Free Exercise Clause to Zubik v. Burwell, questions about how religious rights fit into the legal framework have kept U.S. courts busy since the country’s founding. How did carving out a space for religious accommodation under the law become deafening calls for amnesty? What religious liberty cases currently traveling through the court system should we be keeping our eyes on? Moderator: Tim Townsend, Freelance. Speakers: Sarah Barringer Gordon, Arlin M Adams Professor of Constitutional Law & Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania; Marie Griffith, Director, John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University; Douglas Laycock, Professor of Law and Religious Studies, University of Virginia Law School.

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Zubik v. Burwell, the lead case in a consolidated series, with the other petitioners including Priests for Life, Southern Nazarene University, Geneva College, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, East Texas Baptist University, and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged.The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) requires that group health plans and health insurance issuers provide coverage for women’s “preventative care,” or face financial penalties. Although the ACA does not define preventative care, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), relying on the Institute of Medicine, determined that the term encompassed, among other things, all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, including drugs and devices that could induce an abortion. Federal regulations require petitioners to cover these contraceptives as part of their health plans, unless petitioners submit a form either to their insurer or to the Federal Government, stating that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. Petitioners resisted, asserting that submitting the notice substantially burdened the exercise of their religion, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The ensuing litigation yielded different outcomes in different U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” -- After receiving the supplemental briefs the Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the Courts of Appeals by a vote of 8-0 and remanded the cases to the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, respectively. The Court’s per curiam opinion explained that “‘the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans ‘receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.’” Furthermore, the Court indicated it was expressing no view on the merits of the cases and stated that “nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, is to affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by petitioners’ health plans ‘obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives.’" At the same time, the Court noted, throughout this litigation, petitioners had made the Government aware of their view that they meet “the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds” and nothing in the Court’s opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, “precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage going forward.” And because the Government may rely on this notice, the Court indicated, “the Government may not impose taxes or penalties on petitioners for failure to provide the relevant notice.” -- Justice Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg. -- To discuss the case, we have Roger Severino, who is Director, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, The Heritage Foundation.

Bill Snyder talks with Maureen Ferguson the Senior Policy Advisor for the Catholic Association about the most recent development in the Little Sisters of the Poor Supreme Court Case, Zubik vs. Burwell on this Special Episode of WSFI Spotlight.

Brett and Nazim gather on short notice to discuss the recent decision in Zubik v. Burwell, specifically what happens next, why this is the best outcome, and whether this would have been the decision had Scalia still been on the Court.

On March 23, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Zubik v. Burwell, the lead case in a consolidated series, with the other petitioners including Priests for Life, Southern Nazarene University, Geneva College, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, East Texas Baptist University, and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. -- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) requires that group health plans and health insurance issuers provide coverage for women’s “preventative care,” or face financial penalties. Although the ACA does not define preventative care, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), relying on the Institute of Medicine, determined that the term encompassed, among other things, all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, including drugs and devices that could induce an abortion. Although the government exempted “religious employers” from this mandate, the exemption was narrowly defined and did not extend to petitioners. The government did, however, offer non-profit entities such as petitioners an “accommodation.” -- Under the accommodation, which was modified in the course of litigation, an objecting religious nonprofit entity complies if it provides the government with a notice that includes “the name of the eligible organization,” its “plan name and type,” and the name and contact information for any of the plan’s third-party administrators (TPAs) and health insurance issuers. Upon receiving the notice, the government notifies the objecting entity’s insurance company or TPA, which then must provide payments for the requisite contraceptive products and services. A number of objecting non-profits sought relief in various federal courts, arguing that the accommodation violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The resulting litigation produced a series of fractured opinions and a split in the Courts of Appeals, with non-profit religious organizations prevailing in the Eighth Circuit but losing in a number of others. -- After imposing a brief injunction on enforcement against petitioners while it considered various petitions for certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a number of petitions and consolidated the cases for oral argument on the following question: whether the HHS Mandate and its “accommodation” violate RFRA by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, when the Government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest. On March 29, the Court also issued a detailed order requiring the parties to brief “whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners'’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees.” -- To discuss the case, we have Roger Severino, who is Director, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, The Heritage Foundation.

This week's episode on Zubik v. Burwell, the latest challenge to the Contraceptive Mandate under the First Amendment.  In addition to discussing the original Hobby Lobby decision (again) and RFRA laws (again) and the Affordable Care Act (again), Brett and Nazim also discuss whether or not the Supreme Court will come to a final resolution, or just prolong these cases into infinity.

Brett is joined by his long-time friend Joanna, a female attorney working for the Government, to discuss government regulation in the field of public health.  Brett and Joanna discuss Whole Women's Health, Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, Zubik v. Burwell, and who are the best and worst two characters on MTV's Teen Mom.

The voice of Lady Parts Justice's videos, Darbi Worley, joins the team this week at the Clubhouse to discuss Zubik v. Burwell, the recent influx of anti-trans bathroom bills, Georgia & North Carolina's LGBT discrimination problem, and Indiana's horrific omnibus abortion bill. We also chat birth control methods, colonics, and the ridiculous places the Florida legislature things you should go for a pap smear.

The voice of Lady Parts Justice's videos, Darbi Worley, joins the team this week at the Clubhouse to discuss Zubik v. Burwell, the recent influx of anti-trans bathroom bills, Georgia & North Carolina's LGBT discrimination problem, and Indiana's horrific omnibus abortion bill. We also chat birth control methods, colonics, and the ridiculous places the Florida legislature things you should go for a pap smear.

Zubik v. Burwell | 03/23/16 | Docket #: 14-1418

Two years ago, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that regulations implementing Obamacare’s “preventive care” mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) for certain closely held corporations. Employers with religious objections to some of the contraceptives that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) required them to cover had to be exempt from that regulation. They thus joined churches and their “auxiliaries,” which HHS had exempted from the contraceptive mandate after public outrage at the scope of the initial regulation. But what about nonprofits that HHS considered insufficiently religious to merit exemption? Religious schools, charities, and the like were instead offered an “accommodation”: These employers had to give the government information about their insurers and sign forms allowing their health plan to provide contraceptives. The only justification for this differential treatment was that employees of organizations that aren’t houses of worship are less likely to share their employer’s faith. In other words, HHS refused to exempt people who work for groups like Little Sisters of the Poor — a group of nuns who vow obedience to the Pope! — because they’re less committed to a religious mission. Thus the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether the contraceptive mandate and its “accommodation” violate RFRA by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs when the government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest. Please join us for a discussion of all the issues these cases raise, including what to look for at oral argument the following week. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.