Court Ruling Keeps Abortion Funding, Religious Freedom Violation, Health Care Rationing

frcblog.com ^ | June 29 2012 | The Family Research Council

[NoLibZone]

In a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, maintaining the “individual mandate” as constitutional, not under the commerce clause, but under the taxing clause.

The only part of Obamacare the Court limited was the law’s requirements on state Medicaid programs to expand or face a loss of all Medicaid funding.

So, here are the several pro-life and religious freedom problems that now stand with the Court’s blessing, and other items of concern (section references are to PPACA, P.L. 111-148):

I. The abortion subsidies and funding scheme stand (see chart of Obamacare abortion scheme for more detail)

Federal subsidies for health plans that include elective abortion in state exchanges will continue. (Section 1303) The abortion fee will require every person in a plan that has abortion coverage will pay at least $12 per year even if they do not want abortion services. (Section 1303)

[NoLibZone]

National Right to Life: Supreme Court Decision Means Americans Must Elect Mitt Romney and a Pro-Life Congress Committed to Repealing ObamaCare

http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release062812.html

[sickoflibs]

I don’t think that those were challenged in this lawsuit,
Those issues didn’t come up until after the case was underway. Nice try,

[Godwin1]

“Nice Try?” What does that mean? Is there any doubt that Obama will use USG funds to subsidize abortion? Is there a doubt that he intends to abolish conscience protections for Christian believers and drive the Catholic Church from the public square by destroying its medical, charitable and educational ministries?

[LadyDoc]

the court wasn’t asked about these things, only if a person could be forced to buy insurance under the commerce clause of the constitution...

as Roberts wrote (I paraphrase) if you are dumb enough to pass this monstrasity, you fix it. All I can say is if it is legal...

[sickoflibs]

RE :”“Nice Try?” What does that mean?”

Those issues were just challenged in a very recent lawsuit not this one just decided which was filed last year.
This post tries to convince the reader that this decision approved of those parts of the bill to further inflame him , the reader.

Those issues abortion, BC, were not even argued in this case.

[ZULU]

It ALSO means Roberts should be IMPEACHED for rewriting a Federal Statue under review by the court IN A FASHION EVEN OPPOSED BY ITS SUPPORTERS in order to approve it!!!!

This sets a precedent for FUTURE court decisions which must NOT be allowed to stand and punishing Roberts for clearly violating the Separation of Powers clause is the only recourse.

[deadrock]

Isn’t the Catholic Church exempt from taxation? Then Obamacare does not apply to them.