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 ...
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.
You throw enough people under the bus, eventually someone throws YOU under the bus; a lesson for Val and her little boy, Barry!
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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...
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.
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...
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):
That evil is the legalized taking of innocent, unborn human life. 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.
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...
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
Someone said that Kennedy had some unusual comments about religious freedom. Did you see those anyplace? If so, do you have a link?
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.