Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court: Wheaton College doesn’t have to sign doc giving employees ‘free’ abortifacients
Lifesitenews.com ^ | Fri Jul 4, 2014 - 2:32 pm EST | Ben Johnson

Posted on 07/04/2014 9:59:21 PM PDT by topher

WASHINGTON, D.C. – ObamaCare's controversial HHS mandate suffered another setback on Thursday, as the Supreme Court voted to allow a Christian college to opt out of signing a form that would result in their insurance company providing employees with “free” birth control and abortifacients. Instead, says the high court, the coverage will kick in after they inform HHS of their religious objection.

The 6-3 decision exempts Wheaton College from filing Form 700, which certifies its religious objection to providing abortifacient drugs to women, until the case has been fully adjudicated. In all likelihood, the matter will ultimately be decided by the justices themselves.

(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; christian; contraception; freedomreligion; obamacare; obamacaredying; prolife; scotus; wheaton; wheatonvburwell
There is something on Frontpage about this, but the title says it all: entities such as Little Sisters of the Poor, EWTN, etc do not need to sign the HHS Obamacare mandate.

It is an important decision because basically if they objected to it (Wheaton College, Little Sisters of the Poor) and signed it, the the TAXPAYERS would pay for abortion, etc.

1 posted on 07/04/2014 9:59:21 PM PDT by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topher
I think SCOTUS has upheld the constitution.

SCOTUS has also kicked Obama in the groin along with many other liberals, and Planned Parenthood

2 posted on 07/04/2014 10:00:27 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Excuse my ignorance, but didn’t the Court break for Summer recess on June 30?


3 posted on 07/04/2014 10:01:03 PM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
SCOTUSblog.com has this article about this case:

Commentary: Why I don’t think the Court’s Wheaton College decision rests on any misunderstanding of the law [by Tom Goldstein]

Maybe SCOTUS decided to CELEBRATE the 4th of July by gutting abortion aspects of Obamacare...

4 posted on 07/04/2014 10:05:05 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
But... But... But... They had to throw some FIRECRACKERS under Obama's bed for the 4th of July.

You are quite correct. It must have been something special to have gotten them to give this Judgement...

5 posted on 07/04/2014 10:07:15 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fwdude; BuckeyeTexan
SCOTUS Blog.com is calling this an interim order (whatever that means).

This case is:

Wheaton College v. Sylvia Burwell (Secretary of Health and Human Services).

Poster BuckeyeTexas might be able to explain this...

6 posted on 07/04/2014 10:13:25 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: topher

Wait a sec, didn’t that pro-life democrat who voted for Obamacare assure us there will be no abortion funding in it????


7 posted on 07/04/2014 10:14:26 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

bookmark


8 posted on 07/04/2014 10:15:56 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Obamacare has spawned an egregious mentality of immoral entitlements.


9 posted on 07/04/2014 10:49:39 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

You must mean the Nebraska Corn Hole Hustler, Benedict Nelson ... The national jackass with the pompous hairdo ... The slimy smiling little maggot that was delivered into this world by a garbage truck ... The scum wad that seeped out of a septic tank ... Yeah “pro-life” like the black plague.


10 posted on 07/04/2014 11:19:26 PM PDT by WTFOVR (I find myself exclaiming that expression quite often these days!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topher; fwdude

SCOTUS granted Wheaton’s request for an emergency injunction. That’s really all there is to it.

Wheaton College’s case is currently in the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of Illinois, which is in the 7th Circuit. Justice Kagan is over the 6th and 7th Circuits. So all requests for such things must be submitted to her according to SCOTUS rules. She can grant a request, deny a request, or refer it to the whole court. Since it is a significant case, she chose to refer the request to the whole Court for a vote.

If she had denied the request, Wheaton would have been entitled to submit the request to a justice of their choice. That justice would likely have been one of the five in the majority on Hobby Lobby. That justice has the same options as Kagan.

SCOTUS felt this request constituted a legitimate emergency. In this case, Wheaton had a deadline to meet to submit/sign that form. The Circuit Courts are divided over whether or not to grant such injunctions for religious non-profits who object to the form. So SCOTUS granted the injunction pending completion of the appeals process.

(I’m goofy tired. I hope that made sense.)


11 posted on 07/05/2014 12:21:36 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; topher; fwdude

The way I understood what Alito said is that the coverage is in the government’s lap now. Wheaton did not want to sign a form that authorized their insurance company to provide abortions. Instead, they were allowed simply to notify the government that they weren’t providing abortion coverage. How the government handles it is their business. I see a huge difference between the two.

As one medical doctor I read yesterday wrote, the day after pill can be picked up for 33 bucks.


12 posted on 07/05/2014 1:33:01 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“Excuse my ignorance, but didn’t the Court break for Summer recess on June 30?”

Teleconferencing and texting.... the new wave in judicial communication! ;-)


13 posted on 07/05/2014 3:24:39 AM PDT by ScottinVA (If it doesn't include border security, it isn't "reform." It's called "amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

“Wait a sec, didn’t that pro-life democrat who voted for Obamacare assure us there will be no abortion funding in it????”

Yes you are correct. The gang of 10 ( I think was) is what pushed Obamacare over the top. Obama said he would do an EO about no abortion funding (or something) so he get their DEMOCRAT votes. It was supposed to save their faces so they could vote for Obamacare since they were supposed to be Pro Life.......we all know how that ended, epic fail!


14 posted on 07/05/2014 5:13:52 AM PDT by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

The organization which can lay claim to being the key to the passage of ObamaCare is National Right to Life.

Without NRTLs involvement we would not have ObamaCare, or Federally funded abortions.

Ironic isn’t it?

NRTL is stupid, or evil.


15 posted on 07/05/2014 5:17:25 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (I am a citizen of an idea called America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topher

The question I have is can women seeking such drugs from the college be fired?


16 posted on 07/05/2014 5:21:49 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Obama is public enemy #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

There are no “pro life Democrats”, the term is a oxymoron period


17 posted on 07/05/2014 5:59:25 AM PDT by Friendofgeorge (Sarah Palin 2016 OR BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

There are no “pro life Democrats”, the term is a oxymoron period


18 posted on 07/05/2014 5:59:25 AM PDT by Friendofgeorge (Sarah Palin 2016 OR BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topher
SCOTUS has also kicked Obama in the groin

Chris Matthews and most "reporters" in the MSM better hope their obamaCare coverage is sufficient to treat the concussion they likely suffered when this happened.

19 posted on 07/05/2014 6:07:39 AM PDT by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topher

6-3 isn’t as good as 9-0.
But it’s better tan 5-4.


20 posted on 07/05/2014 6:16:33 AM PDT by left that other site (You shall know the Truth, and The Truth Shall Set You Free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
This latest SCOTUS order simply confirms what it did in the Hobby Lobby case—under the shell game of "religious liberty" for a narrow group of pro-life owners of closely-held corporations—to reaffirm the Traitorobamacare "right" to free abortifacients.

On July 3, 2014, the SCOTUS issued an "interim order" in the case, Wheaton College v. Sylvia Burwell, et al.. The SCOTUS ordered:

If the applicant informs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a nonprofit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, the respondents are enjoined from enforcing against the applicant the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of appellate review. To meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, the applicant need not use the form prescribed by the Government, EBSA Form 700, and need not send copies to health insurance issuers or third-party administrators.

This case is similar to the Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. vs HHS case, before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in which EWTN refused to submit a Form 700.

Moreover, the SCOTUS stated:

Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant’s employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives. The Government contends that the applicant’s health insurance issuer and third-party administrator are required by federal law to provide full contraceptive coverage regardless whether the applicant completes EBSA Form 700. The applicant contends, by contrast, that the obligations of its health insurance issuer and third-party administrator are dependent on their receipt of notice that the applicant objects to the contraceptive coverage requirement. But the applicant has already notified the Government—without using EBSA Form 700—that it meets the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds. Nothing in this order precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the Act.

In his column, "Commentary: Is the Court’s attempt at a compromise order in Wheaton College based upon a misunderstanding of the law?," Marty Lederman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, who disagrees with Court's order, states:

In other words, the Court apparently believes that its interim order will, like its resolution of Hobby Lobby on Monday, result in a “win-win” situation, in which the plaintiff does not have to do the thing that it claims would violate its religion (namely, submit Form 700), and yet its employees (and its students, too) will still be able to receive cost-free contraception coverage from the third-party administrators (TPAs) of Wheaton’s self-insured health plan: Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BC/BS) and Companion Life Insurance Co.

Lawyer Tom Goldstein agrees with the Court's order in his column, "Commentary: Why I don’t think the Court’s Wheaton College decision rests on any misunderstanding of the law."

Either way the SCOTUS opinions in the Hobby Lobby case (see section (c), p. 5) and the Wheaton College case should be rightfully condemned by pro-life organizations as pro-murder-by-abortion "kabuki theater." It makes a grand play to deny HHS taking money for abortifacients out of one employer's pocket while affirming HHS can simply take the money out of many other pockets of the same and many other pairs of pants.

The SCOTUS has demonstrated it can no longer be trusted to uphold the Constitution.

21 posted on 07/05/2014 8:34:06 AM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

You throw enough people under the bus, eventually someone throws YOU under the bus; a lesson for Val and her little boy, Barry!


22 posted on 07/05/2014 9:14:51 AM PDT by A Formerly Proud Canadian (I once was blind but now I see...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topher; fwdude

It’s really nothing more than an emergency injunction pending appeal. The order applies to the interim period between now and the end of the appeals process.


23 posted on 07/05/2014 10:38:23 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Correct, with this ruling.

What Alito says in it is as I wrote. It is essentially the ruling that came down in Hobby Lobby the other day. There are less intrusive ways the government can deal with Wheaton since it is about religion.


24 posted on 07/05/2014 11:07:57 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins
In Obamacare, it is an intentionally a CATCH-22 situation. If you deny coverage to your employees, the the taxpayers pay for that coverage.

So regardless, abortion coverage is provided as Obamacare was originally legislated.

The Little Sisters of the Poor do not want to sign something one way or another, as their employees would get abortion coverage.

This ruling eliminates (for the moment) abortion coverage if the employer, such as The Little Sisters of the Poor wish to sign something denying coverage...

25 posted on 07/05/2014 8:06:37 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins
In Obamacare, it is an intentionally a CATCH-22 situation. If you deny coverage to your employees, the the taxpayers pay for that coverage.

So regardless, abortion coverage is provided as Obamacare was originally legislated.

The Little Sisters of the Poor do not want to sign something one way or another, as their employees would get abortion coverage.

This ruling eliminates (for the moment) abortion coverage if the employer, such as The Little Sisters of the Poor wish to sign something denying coverage...

26 posted on 07/05/2014 8:06:38 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: topher

Denying coverage or simply informing the government that you are not providing that coverage is important.

If I deny your request to pay for an abortion, and you go to Planned Parenthood, then that is not on me. I’ve done what I could do. It’s sad that money is fungible, and we realize that some of our tax dollars go to such an organization, but we’ve been trying to fix even that.


27 posted on 07/06/2014 2:24:04 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The way Obamacare is written is such that if the employer opts out of coverage, then the government pays for the coverage (the healthcare provider for that employer provides the abortion coverage).

That is why it was a CATCH-22 situation Obama/Sebelius/Reid/Pelosi did this intentionally so that EWTN, Wheaton College, Little Sisters of the Poor, etc, can say they don't want to provide coverage, but their insurance company will regardless of whether the employer opts out or not.

LifeSiteNews.com had an article about this on EWTN:

Judge rules against EWTN in HHS mandate case

This was on June 19, 2014 before the Hobby Lobby Ruling.

The Judge, from the article states:

"EWTN doesn't have to comply with the mandate. All it has to do is sign a form certifying its opposition to the use of contraceptives and then deliver that form to its third-party administrator," she continued.

Further down in the article [Reporter Ben Johnson writes]:

The Obama administration's health care “accommodation” requires employers to certify their religious objections, but their insurance company must then offer female employees birth control pills for “free.” Critics say the move is nothing more than an accounting gimmick, but Judge Granade found the distinction compelling.

The article states that contraceptives that cause abortions must be offered...

So Obamacare, as originally legislated, must provide abortion-causing-pills...

28 posted on 07/06/2014 7:14:19 PM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: topher

What Alito said is that they do not have to sign a form. They simply say we’re not providing this coverage, and it’s over for them.

That is a distinction that makes a difference. It is saying, “No” and having it mean no.


29 posted on 07/07/2014 3:41:41 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Sorry. I admit I am wrong. And you are correct.

Basically, Justice Scalia said that these religious Organizations have told the government that do not want to provide contraception/abortion pills WITHOUT USING FORM 700.

This is the key point.

However, this is only an interim ruling until the court takes up the issue probably in the next session starting October 2014.

Link to the PDF:

Wheaton College v. Sylia Burwell [HHS Secretary]

One need read up to the sentence:

JUSTICE SCALIA concurs in the result.

The rest is pages and pages of dissent by the female Justices.

Just a very complicated situation...

30 posted on 07/07/2014 7:32:56 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge
You wrote:

There are no “pro life Democrats”, the term is a oxymoron period

You did not hear of Louisiana State Representative Katrina Jackson. She is a Pro-Life Democrat from West Monroe. She is also African-American

The following is a quote from the Archdiocesan Newspaper of New Orleans (in the Article State Rep. Katrina Jackson is pro-life, pro-woman):

But the Democratic state representative from Monroe believes she was born at exactly the right time and in exactly the right state to oppose with every fiber of her being – as a woman, as an African American, as an attorney, as a pro-life Democrat and as a Christian – the worst social evil to befall U.S. civilization since slavery.

That evil is the legalized taking of innocent, unborn human life.

The bill she sponsored is suppose to close 3 of the 5 abortion clinics in Louisiana.

That would be the one in Baton Rouge and the two in New Orleans.

That will only leave two abortion clinics in Northwest Louisiana (Shreveport), and none in South Louisiana.

Governor Bobby Jindal went to West Monroe for the signing of two Pro-Life bills in June. This one (HB388) and another one by a pro-life Republican (HB305).

HB305 bans any group that advocates abortion from Public Schools.

With the signing of HB305, Planned Parenthood is banned from visiting Public Schools.

Both these bills fly through the House and Senate with token opposition:

HB388:

1st House Vote: 85-6
2nd House Vote (consider Senate Amendments): 88-5
Senate Vote: 34-3

You lose elections in Louisiana if you are pro-abortion...

31 posted on 07/07/2014 8:02:22 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: topher

Good for her

Still when I read of democrats attending pro life rallies and then going home to vote Democrat...Alice in Wonderland

And yet apparently her pro life views do not trump her other views, she still wants to be part of the Democrat party

I still say that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for anti Christian values, abortion gay marriage etc

If her pro life Christian values do not trump her other Democrat views, then in my mind she is not pro life like I am

To me pro life trumps everything, but apparently other issues trump her pro life views

She is Christian as well reportedly.....So on top of the fact that other Democrat issues trump the slaughter of aprox 70 million since 1972 in her mind

She still wants to be a Democrat even though The Democrat Party has a anti Christian party platform in multiple areas

Now if she was running for Senate we would have to ask her if she would be supporting her party in the Senate, because thats how judges are picked

The Democrat party is ANTi CHRISTIAN period


32 posted on 07/07/2014 8:34:52 AM PDT by Friendofgeorge (Sarah Palin 2016 OR BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: topher

Someone said that Kennedy had some unusual comments about religious freedom. Did you see those anyplace? If so, do you have a link?


33 posted on 07/07/2014 8:57:11 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson