Judge Remands Religious Pregnancy-Center Claim

[rug]

By RYAN ABBOTT
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Last Update: 9:15 AM PT

WASHINGTON (CN) - A federal judge said the U.S. Department of Agriculture must take another look at its denial of an application for a federal loan from a religiously based pregnancy center in Vermont.

The Care Net Pregnancy Center of Windham County sued the USDA and Secretary Thomas Vilsack after the agency denied its application for a government-sponsored loan to build a ministry center to help young women cope with unplanned pregnancies.

The problem, according to the USDA, is that religious outfits may not use the agency's Community Facilities Loan Program for overtly religious purposes, and Care Net planned to use the center also for Bible study.

Care Net appealed the denial to the USDA, but a hearing officer found that the nonprofit failed to satisfy the faith-based eligibility requirements of the loan program.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/16/51304.htm

[Angry Dragon]

1. Let the churches give them the money

[Downwinder]

2. Human Pregnancy Center under the Department of Agriculture?

[rug]

3. That's what I was wondering.

I bet the Community Facilities Loan Program is a successor to the rural Grange programs.

[Downwinder]

4. Fundamentalists recognizing that man is just another animal.

[cleanhippie]

5. How can those that purport to be somehow more moral than others be such *fucking* liars?

Care net IS a religious organization, not just a religiously based one. These anti-abortion bible-thumpers are trying to have it both ways.

https://www.care-net.org/

Complete with bible verses, proclamations to "His Glory", and all the usual trappings of a religious group. How can they [s]pretend[/s], LIE about the fact that a religious group, with a religious agenda, is exactly what they are? Would Jesus approve? I think not.

[rug]

6. Yeah, this is a pretty egregious one.

But, I don't think they were liars and tried to conceal it. The court sent it back to the agency because it had not considered those First Amendment claims.