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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Ct: Obama Admin Can’t Make Catholic Group Obey Pro-Abortion HHS Mandate
LifeNews ^ | April 27, 2015

Posted on 04/27/2015 7:43:48 PM PDT by NYer

The Supreme Court issued an order today preventing the Obama administration from forcing a Catholic group in Michigan to obey the HHS mandate that requires them to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. This is the fifth time the Supreme Court has rebuked the Obama administration and prevented it from making such a mandate.

For the sixth time in a row, the Supreme Court took steps to protect another religious objector from the HHS mandate. It ordered a lower court to reconsider its ruling that denied a group of Catholic ministries in Michigan the freedom to follow their faith.  

“The government keeps making the same bad arguments and the Supreme Court keeps rejecting them – every single time. This is because the government can obviously come up with ways to distribute contraceptives without the forced involvement of Catholic ministries,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case. “As with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, this is a strong signal that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the government’s narrow view of religious liberty. And it makes it less likely that lower courts will accept arguments the Supreme Court has rejected over and over and over again.” 

As the Becket Fund noted, the Michigan Catholic Conference and other Catholic ministries brought their request to the Supreme Court after a surprising lower court decision that would have allowed large IRS fines against the ministries because they, based on their religious beliefs, cannot provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plans. The federal government has relied heavily on that decision in courts around the country, arguing that it should be able to impose similar burdens on religious ministries like the Little Sisters of the Poor. 

Like this pro-life news article? Please support LifeNews during our current fundraising campaign with a donation!

In an order issued by the Supreme Court last month, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito prevented the federal government from enforcing its contraceptive mandate against a range of Pennsylvania-based religious organizations including Catholic Charities and other Catholic schools and social service organizations connected with the Diocese of Erie and the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The Supreme Court has previously protected the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the University of Notre Dame.

Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told LifeNews: “How many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message? For years now the government has been claiming that places like Catholic Charities and the Little Sisters of the Poor are not “religious employers” worthy of an exemption.”

“That argument has always been absurd. Every time a religious plaintiff has gone to the Supreme Court for protection from the government’s discriminatory mandate the Court has protected them. That’s what happened to the Little Sisters of the Poor, Wheaton College, Notre Dame, and Hobby Lobby,” Windham continued. “The government really needs to give up on its illegal and unnecessary mandate. The federal bureaucracy has lots of options for distributing contraceptives–they don’t need to coerce nuns and priests to do it for them.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: catholic; hhs; prolife; scotus

1 posted on 04/27/2015 7:43:48 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; Salvation; ...

Catholic ping!


2 posted on 04/27/2015 7:44:13 PM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

what were the numbers?


3 posted on 04/27/2015 7:44:57 PM PDT by dp0622 (Franky Five Angels: "Look, let's get 'em all -- let's get 'em all now, while we got the muscle.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” - Hillary Clinton
4 posted on 04/27/2015 7:56:20 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Hillary isn’t thinking about SCOTUS, she is thinking more along the lines of trains and internment camps


5 posted on 04/27/2015 7:58:04 PM PDT by GeronL (Clearly Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

More childish lib behavior. Can I have this? No. Can I have this? No. Can I have this? No. Can I have this? No. And they won’t quit.


6 posted on 04/27/2015 7:58:58 PM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The Supreme Court issued an order today preventing the Obama administration from forcing a Catholic group in Michigan to obey the HHS mandate that requires them to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. This is the fifth time the Supreme Court has rebuked the Obama administration and prevented it from making such a mandate.


Praise God!


7 posted on 04/27/2015 8:08:49 PM PDT by Grateful2God (Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

**“The government really needs to give up on its illegal and unnecessary mandate. The federal bureaucracy has lots of options for distributing contraceptives–they don’t need to coerce nuns and priests to do it for them.”**

BTTT!


8 posted on 04/27/2015 8:22:38 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

On what basis can anyone reasonably believe that this will stop the emperor from continuing with his jihad?


9 posted on 04/27/2015 8:26:16 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Hillary isn’t thinking about SCOTUS, she is thinking more along the lines of trains and internment camps

With respect to Hillary and her alleged 'husband', I'm thinking along the lines of the fates of Mussolini and the Ceaucescus.

10 posted on 04/27/2015 8:36:46 PM PDT by Noumenon (Resistance. Restoration. Retribution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon

bump


11 posted on 04/27/2015 8:41:01 PM PDT by GeronL (Clearly Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon

Well said!


12 posted on 04/27/2015 8:53:13 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

They ignore the cases they lose.

All they need is one win one time and they claim precedent and anyone who challenges them will now have no grounds as their court ruling they want is on the books.

If a RINO or lib win in 2016 this will continue until they get the result they want.

We are very much approaching the point where there will be only one way to correct this country.


13 posted on 04/27/2015 8:53:19 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Hillary isn’t thinking about SCOTUS, she is thinking more along the lines of trains and internment camps

I wonder if any of the camps have been built yet?

14 posted on 04/27/2015 9:33:21 PM PDT by Mark17 (Beyond the sunset, O blissful morning, when with our Savior, Heaven is begun. Earth's toiling ended)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

rumors is all I know


15 posted on 04/27/2015 9:34:31 PM PDT by GeronL (Clearly Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Another question: How many times must lower courts defy precedent, only to be over-ruled?


16 posted on 04/28/2015 4:38:32 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

There is only one way to stop them.


17 posted on 04/28/2015 10:21:13 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | 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