Posted on 12/17/2013 2:46:47 PM PST by jazusamo
Yesterday, Judge Brian Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, not only struck down
Obamacare's contraception mandate as applied to religious non-profit organizations, but also sent a strong signal that federal courts were losing patience with President Obama's many stitches of executive power.
Previous courts had ruled against President Obama's contraception mandate as applied to for-profit entities (see Sebelius v Hobby Lobby), but this was the first court to hold that participating in Obama's scheme to provide free birth control is a substantial burden on the free practice of religion (specifically the Catholic Archdiocese of New York and its affiliate organizations).
The contraception mandate "directly compels plaintiffs, through the threat of onerous penalties, to undertake actions that their religion forbids," Cogan wrote. "There is no way that a court can, or should, determine that a coerced violation of conscience is of insufficient quantum to merit constitutional protection."
Cogan forcefully rejected three key Obama defenses of the mandate. First, on the government's claim that there was a compelling interest in uniform enforcement of the contraception mandate, Cogan wrote:
Tens of millions of people are exempt from the Mandate, under exemptions for grandfathered health plans, small businesses, and “religious employers” like the Diocesan plaintiffs here. Millions of women thus will not receive contraceptive coverage without cost-sharing through the Mandate. Having granted so many exemptions already, the Government cannot show a compelling interest in denying one to these plaintiffs.
Second, the court also rejected Obama's last minute claim that Obamacare's contraception mandate, as implemented for religious organizations, did not, in fact, mandate contraception:
Here, the Government implicitly acknowledges that applying the Mandate to plaintiffs may in fact do nothing at all to expand contraceptive coverage, because plaintiffs’ TPAs aren’t actually required to do anything after receiving the self-certification. In other words, the Mandate forces plaintiffs to fill out a form which, though it violates their religious beliefs, may ultimately serve no purpose whatsoever. A law that is totally ineffective cannot serve a compelling interest.
(Emphasis added)
Finally, the court also rejected the government's argument that Obama's failure to convince Congress to "fix" Obamacare authorized him to enforce his contraception mandate in the manner he did:
Nor is the Mandate the least restrictive means by which the Government can improve public health and equalize women’s access to healthcare. ... The Government could provide the contraceptive services or insurance coverage directly to plaintiffs’ employees, or work with third parties – be it insurers, health care providers, drug manufacturers, or non-profits – to do so without requiring plaintiffs’ active participation.
...The Government first argues that the alternatives above are infeasible because the defendants lack statutory authority to enact some of them. This argument makes no sense; in any challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law, the question is whether the federal government could adopt a less restrictive means, not any particular branch within it. It would set a dangerous precedent to hold that if the Executive Branch cannot act unilaterally, then there is no alternative solution. If defendants lack the required statutory authority, Congress may pass appropriate legislation.
(Emphasis added)
Considering how often Obama has justified his expansion of executive power on Congress' failure to do his bidding, yesterday's ruling was not only a huge victory for religious liberty, but a huge win for limited government in all spheres as well.
Don’t Muslims believe insurance as a whole to be against their religion?
After watching Roberts “change” his mind into his decision about OBAMAMCARE being a tax, I wonder if he will recuse himself from an NSA cases since that surveillance is the only justifiable reason for his evolution on the OBAMACARE matter.
It seems I read that some time in the past.
I hope the good judge has all of his tax returns ready. He should also be expecting some 3am phone call detailing his daughter’s clothing selection earlier in the day.
Then why are they allowed to drive cars? Liability insurance is required in order to license an automobile.
I hope bummer care get taken down like Jonnie Cash’s Cadillac - “One Piece at a Time”, but faster.
Judicial tyranny vs. Executive tyranny.
Legislating from the bench meets legislating from the White Hut.
Grab the popcorn!
Well said, I remember that from quite awhile back, liked it. :-)
On that subject, do any tax FReepers here know exactly how the gooberment will know who has and who doesn't have health insurance? Will the IRS be deployed as the information gatherer?
It makes no Constitutional sense, it makes tyrannical sense.
I hope somebody is ready to get series ;-) about the BC when this train really gets rollin’!!
Not if it destroys the infidels.
how the heck do muslims drive if their religion forbids insurance.
When lawsuits start over the delayed employer mandate, health insurance plans legal for 2013 but not 2014 and other “executive orders” and “administrative rulings” that alter the law, judges have a conundrum. Do they rule on the law, or do they research what dictates were in effect at the time and rule based on that, or do they rule based on the dictates of the present time?
The Judges are going to need to go shopping for paddles.
Just have to see if the Chief Justice can be blackmailed again. We had some neighbors that are “middle of the road” voters and they voted for 0, since he was running on “free health care” for all.
He went on a rant on his FB page. I don’t get on there but my wife showed me his latest ramblings. I told her to tell him, John told you, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free”.
No reply in the past two weeks. His premiums shot up, and his deductible more than tripled. Serves them right.
Love to hear about cases like that. It’s amazing how many supporters of libs change their views when they get hit in the wallet.
Yes. The IRS will start with the assumption that you do NOT have healthcare and thus owe the penalty. It will be up to you to prove you have coverage and thereby reduce the penalty to zero. It will be cross-checked by insurers issuing the equivalent of a 1099 so the IRS can see if you are lying.
All those listening to "Navigators" who tell them to lie will have a rude awakening come April 15, 2015. I'll bet paying back improperly claimed subsidies will not be exempt from the tender mercies of the IRS collection arm. They might even find ways to make it a criminal charge. There's a poop storm a comin'.
He was blackmailing them. He is into sub law intimidation mode.
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.