Please Help To Keep The
"Conservative News and Views"
On FR Coming By "Clicking Here"!!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 11/14/2014 10:10:59 AM PST by GIdget2004
In a win for the Obama administration on insurance coverage for contraception under Obamacare, a U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled that Catholic non-profit groups' religious rights were not violated by a compromise already achieved on the volatile issue.
Catholic groups had sued over the compromise, saying they should not have to pay for or facilitate access to contraception or abortion, but a judge wrote in the ruling that under the compromise, "the regulations do not compel them to do that."
Handed down by a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit, the unanimous decision is the third by an appeals court to rule in favor of the government. The issue could yet be decided by the Supreme Court.
The court ruled that the compromise on contraception coverage, issued in 2013 and amended in August, did not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs, which would be a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Judge Nina Pillard wrote in the decision that the compromise helps the plaintiffs wash "their hands of any involvement in providing insurance for contraceptive services."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Get ready
These judges are picking the wrong enemy.
Judge Nina Pillard wrote in the decision that the compromise helps the plaintiffs wash “their hands of any involvement in providing insurance for contraceptive services.”
Well, Nina, that certainly worked out well for Pilate,
didn’t it.
When the law, and government, is against God, it’s time to ignore them.
Obama would agree. Laws mean nothing to him.
Yes, well, the DC court obviously doesn’t care about Amendment #1.
bfl
To advocate human slavery, Jefferson believed and asserted here, required a denial or suspension of the concept of "Creator-endowed" life and liberty.
Oh, to unravel all the tangles and to be able to see the threats to liberty bound together in the ruses used to justify ACA's attacks on religious liberty!
We have wandered (or have been led) so far away from the philosophical premises of our liberty, laid out in our Declaration, incorporated in our Constitution's limitations on government power, and articulated in the massive writings of America's Founders, that we cannot easily extricate and identify the basic premises the so-called "Affordable" Care Act's impositions on people of faith violate.
How about pulling out just 2 strands as a start?
1. "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."- Jefferson.
A "first principle" of our liberty is incorporated in the Declaration's assertion of "Creator-endowed" life, liberty, and rights, one of the "self-evident" truths Jefferson claimed reflected what he called "the American mind" of 1776.
JFK said it differently: "The world is different now....And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
The Founders' declaration, if it is to mean anything, must mean that no person or collection of persons--not an overlord in a fiefdom; not a king; not a dictator; not a Priest, nor a President; not a Supreme Court nor a Congress; not even a parent--can arrogate to him(her)(them)self(ves) power to either grant or deny what is "Creator-endowed." President John Quincy Adams called the Declaration's assertions, "the only legitimate foundation of civil government."
If the foundation is eroded or abandoned, then where is the security for liberty for any person of any age?
2. On public funding: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."- Jefferson
These words should guide the President and the Congress in considering public funding for purposes that conflict with the deeply-held beliefs of a large segment of the population of citizens. Democrats can hold whatever personal position they wish on the subject. So can the President, Reid, and Pelosi.
The Founders' Constitution, however, provided no mechanism by which government possessed a legitimate right to "compel a man" or to "take" from a citizen his/her hard-earned money to support the spread of ideas that were or are "abhorrent" to him/her. The talking heads of the Left love to quote Jefferson when they wish to "exclude" the use of public funds for "religious" purposes. They should be equally fond of his recognition of the danger of "tyrannical" use of the funds of religious citizens for purposes they consider to be threatening to the liberty of themselves and other citizens.
Though we are faced with difficult questions, many of them rooted in scientific discovery, science and technology also have provided us with advancements which allow us to "see" and observe human life in its earliest stages (making it less likely for ignorance to lead us to buy into the "antics with semantics" that devalue life in the womb). Technology also has made it possible for us to have easy access to the writings of the Framers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and to the wisdom of the ages that preceded them. Armed with that knowledge, we can be better prepared to refute "counterfeit ideas" that might lead us to erroneous conclusions.
President Jefferson's First Inaugural contained these words:
"The essential principles of our Government... form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety." --1st Inaugural Address, 1801
Do you think that dimwit is even cognizant of the term's origins?
Again, when did businesses become the slaves of their employees re: health-care?
Biz should wise up, band together and DUMP the lot of the benefits of their employees; telling ‘em to ‘go cry to gov’t, it ain’t my job nor worry’
Course I’d be too hopeful the new Congress would pass a bill to allow (damn I hate that phrase) taxpayers to have the same benefits biz does re: paying benefits/healthcare/etc.
She might wonder why I’m referring to some kind of
exercise program...?
And yet, the Catholic establishment still thinks they can have it both ways — liberal economic programs that provide free health care and other benefits to the “poor” but exemptions in those programs for faith-based objections. So they rally support for things like Obamacare while being suckered, again and again, into thinking that the Libs will include faith-based opt outs. Once the program is in place, all the faith based exceptions disappear and Catholic “leaders” rant and rave about how they were tricked. The only way to ensure you can live by your faith is to get rid of government-sponsored cradle-to-grave welfare.
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.