Posted on 04/30/2015 6:21:13 AM PDT by Gamecock
Didn't see this mentioned elsewhere:
The Supreme Court issued an order today preventing the Obama administration from forcing religious groups in Pennsylvania 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.
In an order issued last night, 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.
According to the Becket Fund, Justice Alito’s order is similar to the preliminary order Justice Sotomayor provided to the Little Sisters of the Poor on New Year’s Eve in 2013. The group said order requires the government to brief the Supreme Court next week on why it should be allowed to fine these organizations for refusing to distribute abortion-inducing drugs and devices and other contraceptives.
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.”
The Supreme Court will be considering a similar case involving an order of Nashville Dominican nuns and several Tennessee — and Michigan –based Catholic charities at a conference of the Justices on April 24.
A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.
“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.
The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.
Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”
Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.
**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.”**
Probably until he is drug out of the White House, leaving fingernail tracks behind him.
Easy, until people give up fighting or until Obama wins. After all, it costs a fortune to keep fighting these cases. Obama has a taxpayer funded DoJ, but the religious groups have limits to their resources.
In the meantime, the Obama Regime will interpret this as ONLY covering the individual groups in the lawsuit, not as a blanket ruling and continue the attack on other groups.
A small victory in the otherwise losing war against Obamacare.
We are obligated to disobey unjust laws when they are put in place by corrupt and lawless tyrants. The U.S. is now asociety of government created criminals for profit. We might as well do our part, right?
I think it’s important to note that this is the 5th time. I’m wondering if the White House isn’t irritating the SCOTUS members.
These rulings need to be made with prejudice, so the gov has to reimburse the plaintiff.
Gov doing this on purpose, knowing orgs have to sue to get relief.
Let’s pray SCOTUS continues to uphold the rights of God fearing people and institutions and for a change of heart in government leaders.
Which means we consent to the Obola administration - every time we file our taxes.
**“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports. **
I doubt that he will listen, though.
Can Obama be charged with Contempt of Court and put in Prison??
Tar and feathers.
The underlying point of Obamacare is to force Christians to act contrary to their faith.
Interesting. I'm waiting for some young, enterprising, hungry Lawyer to appear before the US Supreme Court and argue the next logical extension of this ruling, which would then shield those of faith who also own businesses from being forced to bake cakes for "gay weddings."
Am I the only one who sees this as being a needed step in the right direction to stop the assault on those of faith in this country by an extremist homosexual agenda?
This matters not to the Obama minions, who will just attack another Christian organization or company and bully it into following the mandate. All the demons of Hell howl in laughter every time one of these organizations is made to pay for murder.
The Supreme Court only appears to be a check on this malevolence. Actually, the Obama minions just move on the their next victim.
Or all the bakeries adopt religious names and have religious charts posted about their business for the instruction of all.
If SCOTUS recognizes religous liberty is violated by this unconstitutional mandate, how can they then recognize homosexual marriage as a civil right? In doing so, it would violate religous liberty. Even Shillary knows this when she made her preposterous proclamation about religous attitude reform re homosexuality.
That's the paradox Alito was pointing out.
I'll tell you point blank that if the USSC makes "gay marriage" a right there are going to be hundreds of thousands of Christian owned businesses that will be directly under attack by the big gay agenda to take this ruling to the next level, which would be a federally mandated "right" for gays to demand service from Christian owned businesses who'll then be forced to either cede to the big gay agenda or go out of business.
That exact scenario is playing out at the state level with Melissa's Sweet Cakes bakery in Oregon.
Replace the word “homosexual” with “statist” and I’m with you.
These repeated attempts by the Obama Administration to force people of good conscience to act against their beliefs really give good context to Virelli’s “that will be an issue” response on Tuesday. And provide insight into how both Obamacare and same-sex marriage are being used as issues with which to advance the larger issue.
Because the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.
Directly interchangeable in my view.
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.