Politics at play in the HHS anti-sex-trafficking grant process? And, on religious liberty.

A reader and attorney -- Dominique Ludvisgon -- who served for several years in the White House Office of. Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, sent me the following, with respect to the recent reports that the HHS had failed to renew a contract with the Bishops' Migration and Refugee Services office:

I wanted to touch base regarding the Anti-Sex Trafficking grant HHS stripped from USCCB recently.  A few days ago, Marc DeGirolami posted on MOJ about it and the earlier ACLU lawsuit that may have played a role in the decision.  Based on some recent news stories and editorial commentary, I think Mr. DeGirolami gives the Administration a little too much credit by implying that it acted rationally to diffuse the lawsuit rather than simply to press its own political agenda.  (Jerry Markon of the Washington Post has a pretty good story about what happened here: http://news.yahoo.com/battle-flare-between-white-house-catholic-groups-201700706.html and Kathryn Lopez and Steven Wagner have two great posts on the Corner that provide more context here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281859/unfair-and-politicized-anti-sex-trafficking-grant-process-kathryn-jean-lopez and here:  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282053/trafficking-victims-take-backseat-ideology-steven-wagner). 

Based on the facts that have come out regarding Obama political appointees' interference in the grant-making process, one is left with two impressions: (1) the anti-sex trafficking program is being politicized and manipulated in service to the radical pro-choice agenda set forth by this Administration and its HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius and (2) this latest development in the state's attempt to crowd out highly-qualified religious social service providers that actually adhere to the fundamental tenets of their faith reveals, among other troubling things, what little regard this Administration has for the religious liberties of individuals and religious organizations and what an utter farce the Administration's Neighborhood and Community Partnerships office is. 

For years, Bush Faith-Based & Community Initiatives critics like Barry Lynn, FFRF, the ACLU and others sought to dredge up evidence of politics trumping fair grant processes and for years, those critics came up empty.  When he campaigned for office and early in his Administration, President Obama (and other Admin. officials like Josh DuBois) would frequently recite the criticisms, routinely and wrongly suggesting that the Bush Administration rigged the federal grants process to "funnel" public dollars to politically favored religious groups.  So in a cheap-shot attempt to differentiate this Administration's virtuous social service partnership efforts from the allegedly biased work of its predecessor, Obama EO 13559, "Fundamental Principles and Policymaking Criteria for Partnerships With Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood Organizations" contains the following provision (Section 2 (j)):  "Decisions about awards of Federal financial assistance must be free from political interference or even the appearance of such interference and must be made on the basis of merit, not on the basis of the religious affiliation of a recipient organization or lack thereof."   

When it rolled out its version of the FBCI, the Administration suggested that it was still open to partnering with qualified religious (as well as secular service providers), but it would do so in a fair manner.  What it didn't emphasize was that, regardless of the equal treatment regulations still on the books, its version of "partnership" entailed a return to the pre-Bush FBCI era, where hostility towards committed religious providers and outmoded strains of Establishment Clause jurisprudence prevailed. 

Given the fantastic performance of the USCCB in its coordination of anti-trafficking victims services in past grant years and the determination by career officials and an independent review board that it was significantly more highly qualified than at least two of the three subsequent grant awardees (who were actually deemed "unqualified"), HHS's denial of the grant to USCCB is highly suspect indeed.  In fact, if one considers this case in light of the Administration's track record on religious liberties and conscience protections, it is difficult to conclude anything but that USCCB was discriminated against because of its adherence to the Catholic church's teachings regarding human dignity and sexuality.  Accordingly, HHS's actions appear to be unlawfully discriminatory AND fly in the face of the Administration's own rules with respect to partnerships between faith-based organizations and government.  

One success of the Bush FBCI's equal treatment efforts was to encourage agencies to revise provisions in federal grant solicitations that had no basis in law and/or were actually motivated by hostility and discrimination towards religious social service providers.  Such provisions, even when neutral on their face, had very discriminatory effects in practice by stacking the deck against qualified religious organizations competing for federal grants.  In this case, the Obama/Sebelius HHS directed or permitted political appointees to strategically inserting language in grant solicitations motivated by hostility toward committed religious organizations.  It further directed or permitted them to skirt fair grant procedures by disregarding the considered assessment of both career officials and an independent review board as to which grant applicants would most suitably perform the services required under the grant.  Such actions should provoke an outcry among those who routinely crowed about the alleged politicization of federal grant programs during the Bush Administration.  Where are all those critical voices now?

Over at Distinctly Catholic, Michael Sean Winters is also, I think, critical of the decision, but is not convinced that the denial is part of a larger "anybody but Catholics" attitude at HHS.  We'll see.

I should note that Winters has a number of posts, in recent days, reflecting on law, culture, and religious liberty . . . and the new evangelization.  Check them out.