Posted on 01/03/2014 9:09:40 AM PST by NYer
On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an order preventing the government from enforcing the Obamacare contraceptive mandate on the Little Sisters of the Poor.
Sotomayor’s decision to delay the contraceptive portion of the law was joined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which also issued an emergency stay for Catholic-affiliated groups challenging the contraceptive provision, including the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and Catholic University.
Separately, Lawyer Noel J. Francisco had said in appeals to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan that the mandate would “expose numerous Catholic organizations to draconian fines unless they abandon their religious convictions and take actions that facilitate access to abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization for their employees and students.”
In December of 2012, I reported that the Little Sisters of the Poor saw the very real threat of having to leave their apostolate in the United States if they could not gain an exemption from the HHS mandates on contraception and abortion coverage through the Affordable Care Act.
This morning, Matt Bowman brought to light the moral dilemma facing the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the reason why they can’t simply sign the required form designating a third party administrator to do, for lack of any other way of putting it, the dirty work for them:
Obamacare says that when an entity is in a self-insured plan, like the Little Sisters are, they must file a certification form. But it’s not like other certification forms that the rule requires. It does not merely express their religious objections. The form also, specifically and additionally, “designates” their “third party administrator” to go get the abortifacient and birth control payments. As I explained at Mirror of Justice, in a message posted by Prof. Marc DeGirolami:
The final regulation even points out that this added language is legally operative: the designation words themselves are what cause the TPA’s obligation to go get the coverage. Without the designation telling the TPA to go get that coverage, the TPA wouldn’t have any duty to be involved. … So it’s important to observe that for self-insured religious non-profits, there’s a “certification,” but there’s also a “designation”…. The designation is, by definition, an act of contracting and arranging for the coverage.
The government even conceded, in Cardinal Wuerl’s lawsuit, that “in the self-insured case, technically, the contraceptive coverage is part of the plan.” It’s not separate.
And yet today, the Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department is now pressuring Justice Sotomayor to dissolve her stay. They are, it appears, using the same arguments:
The Justice Department Friday called on Justice Sonia Sotomayor to dissolve her stay on the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
The government says religious nonprofit groups can certify that they don’t want to provide contraceptive coverage. A group of Catholic nuns who run nursing homes sued, saying even signing that form violates their beliefs.
Government lawyers say the nuns’ insurance is a “church plan” that is not required to provide contraception coverage and has decided not to, so they have no legal basis to complain.
This relentless pursuit by the administration to gain acquiescence from religious institutions which morally object to the mandate is nothing short of religious persecution. It would be remarkable that the most progressive administration in US history is also the most intolerant, if history didn’t show us where the progressive path leads those nations that choose to follow it.
How do they do that? SCOTUS is a completely separate branch.
If he isn't the lawless one I will eat my hat and the crow that sits in it.
Obama is probably just applying the same methods he used on Justice Roberts. Hey, it worked once. Might as well go for two.
Pressuring a judge...illegal? Not in the post-Constitutional regency of bh0, where his diktat is law.
“... It needs to be reversed “FOREVER” just as prohibition was reversed...by a Constitutional amendment.”
::::::::::::
Yes, it does, and post haste. This legislative horror story needs to be prevented in the future, and severe penalties need to be put into place for the OBVIOUS law breakers and for those deliberately working to support political agendas as opposed to working FOR the people. The breaking of the Presidential Oath should be a major felony in my opinion.
“If he isn’t the lawless one I will eat my hat and the crow that sits in it.”
He’s one of them, I believe. THE one? For whatever reason, my sense is no. I imagine someone worse appearing, someone able to fool most of the other half who hate Obama.
Time will tell.
There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is “haraam”, or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Other excluded groups include Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists.
Those NRA files sure are a boon for a “Chicago Way” tyrant.
From Forbes:
Your “sect” has to have been in continuous existence since December 31, 1950, and the Commissioner of Social Security must agree that your sect “has the established tenets or teachings” consistent with opposition to medical benefits. While there are some on the Internet who believe that this religious exemption applies to Islam, it doesn’t appear that way to me, as Muslims are not exempt from Social Security. Instead, the exemption is meant for groups like the Amish.
--- end of snip ---
The bottom line is that it all depends on how some regulator interprets the ACA rules.
Article's address:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/white-house-publishes-final-regulations-for-obamacares-individual-mandate-seven-things-you-need-to-know/
Wasn’t there a rumor going around that he is gay?...........
Wonder if the hero of Benghazi has ruled on this? Peace be upon him!
Perhaps the season has caused her to reflect and then fear for her immortal soul. Or not.
This is pure political theater. There has never been and will never be any doubt that the Sotomizor IS obama, want exactly the same thing and are going through the process of implementation in a way they feel will hurt them the least.
An argument could certainly be made comparing John Roberts to the most treacherous of American traitors.
It would be quite an irony if Sotomayor turned out to be Obama’s Earl Warren. Eisenhower appointed Warren thinking that he was appointing a rational jurist, only to find out that he had appointed an unprincipled left-wing tyrant with no respect for the law or the Constitution. Obama appointed Sotomayor thinking he was appointing an unprincipled left-wing tyrant. How ironic if it were to turn out that she actually respects the law and the Constitution.
I am not a fan of Sotomayor, but she is in my prayers today ... prayers that God will give her the strength to stand up to the evil that is the Obama Administration. They are the Devil's thugs, determined that people of God will forsake their God and instead will bend their knee to the government.
Wouldn’t it be easier if Holder just sent a couple of his homies over to her house with some pliers and a blowtorch?
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.