FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/23/2014 5:11:27 AM PDT by xzins
The Supreme Court decision in the monumental Hobby Lobby case against the abortion mandate in Obamacare is expected either this week or next.
The Obama administration is attempting to make Hobby Lobby and thousands of pro-life businesses and organizations comply with the HHS mandate that compels religious companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees. However, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.
Kristina Arriaga, Executive Director of the Becket Fund, the legal group heading up the lawsuit against the mandate for Hobby Lobby, talked about what to expect.
hobbylobby3“We are expecting the Hobby Lobby decision any day now,” she said in an email to LifeNews. “In fact, we have been holding our collective breath for the last several weeks as the Supreme Court issues its Monday opinions.”
“As of today, according to several longtime observers of the Court, the expectation is that additional days will be added to the opinion calendar. We suspect that Monday, June 23, will be followed by several other days of announcements; and then, we will hear later that same week. Until then, we wait,” she added.
Arriaga says the decision is a long time coming.
“I think it is inherently unjust that the government has forced the Green family, the devout owners of Hobby Lobby, to face a two-year battle in court,” she explained. “As you know, the Greens grew their family business out of their garage. They now own stores in 41 states employing more than 16,000 full time employees. They have always operated their business according to their faith. In fact, the Greens pay salaries that start at twice the minimum wage and offer excellent benefits, as well as a healthcare package which includes almost all of the contraceptives now mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Their only objection is to 4 drugs and devices which, the government itself concedes, can terminate an embryo.”
“Their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should be protected by the government. Instead, the government has threatened them with fines and fought them all the way to the Supreme Court,” Arriaga added.
“The government has already exempted tens of millions of Americans from complying with the mandate that forces employers to provide certain specific drugs and devices. However, it refuses to accommodate the Green family because the Green family’s objections are religious. We believe that the government’s position is not only extreme and unconstitutional; it presents a grave danger to our freedoms,” she continued.
The Obama administration says it is confident it will prevail, saying, “We believe this requirement is lawful…and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”
“My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case,” said Mr. Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO. “This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”
The Supreme Court is also taking the case of the Mennonite cabinet makers forced to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs.
In July, a federal court granted Hobby Lobby a preliminary injunction against the HHS abortion-drug mandate. The injunction prevented the Obama administration from enforcing the mandate against the Christian company, but the Obama administration appealed that ruling recently. The government’s appeal makes it highly likely that the Supreme Court will decide the issue in the upcoming term.
After the appeals court ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton issued a preliminary injunction and stayed the case until Oct. 1 to give the Obama administration time to appeal the decision.
In an opinion read from the bench, the court said, “There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved.”
Duncan says there are now 63 separate lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate. The Becket Fund led the charge against the unconstitutional HHS mandate. The Becket Fund currently represents: Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, Colorado Christian University, the Eternal Word Television Network, Ave Maria University, and Belmont Abbey College.
Hobby Lobby could have paid as much as $1.3 million each day in fines for refusing to pay for birth control or abortion-causing drugs under the mandate.
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.
I very much agree, though I have to be honest I'm not hopeful:
- John Adams, a devout Christian, helped choose the bald eagle as the symbol for America. I believe it was an inspired choice.
- The bald eagle has come roaring back from near extinction.
- An eagle's youth is renewed as it gets older as researchers continue to discover and as the Bible tells us (Ps 103:5).
- Interestingly, the flying eagle is one of four faces described throughout the Bible (Eze 1:10,10:14; Rev 4:7) of "man-like" (Eze 1:5) creatures that surround the throne and ceaselessly say "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Rev 4:8). Well many believe that these four faces represent the four main characteristics of Jesus with each of the four gospels emphasizing one of the four. The flying eagle is thought to symbolize Jesus as the Son of God, emphasized in John's gospel, as the one who will fly back to us in his second coming.
To me, these are all very hopeful symbols and aspects that point to the possibility and hope of God, not man, reviving America and giving her "a new birth of freedom" until Jesus returns for his bride. (All bets are off after that.) I also have some personal reasons why I think America's freedom and prosperity may be renewed because of clear promises of God's blessing and greatly prospering me and others for the next 60 years or so before I go to Heaven.
Of course you can. Just laws in a free society only prohibit actions that interfere with another's life and liberty. Unjust laws interfere with adult individuals' own private free choice that does not interfere with other's freedom.
Abortion is murder, clearly interfering with the life of the unborn and, therefore, should be prohibited.
Sodomy done in private between consenting adults, though deviant and reprehensible behavior, does not interfere with another's freedom and, therefore, should not be illegal
Just laws in a free society only prohibit actions that interfere with another's life and liberty. Unjust laws interfere with adult individuals' own private free choice that does not interfere with other's freedom.
Abortion is murder, clearly interfering with the life of the unborn and, therefore, should be prohibited.
Sodomy done in private between consenting adults, though deviant and reprehensible behavior, does not interfere with another's freedom and, therefore, should not be illegal
I’m not, for this thread, discussing if homosexuality ought to be illegal. Should someone who believes homosexuality is evil and repulsive in God’s eyes be forced to celebrate homosexuality in his public life?
Can we only condemn sin as sin in private homes and churches, or can we act on our beliefs in the public sphere?
And remember - the pro-choice folks completely reject your belief that “Abortion is murder”. They liken it to removing a tumor. In fact, from a religious viewpoint, the Bible condemns homosexuality in strong terms and is largely silent on abortion.
Please notice I am NOT in any way supporting abortion. But from a religious freedom viewpoint, the religious argument against homosexuality is more explicit in the Bible, along with some other religions.
Disease does interfere with freedom. A propensity toward child abuse does interfere with freedom. Early death and mental disease does interfere with freedom.
The court will rule against Hobby Lobby. They’ll say something along the lines of “Providing insurance coverage that is not in line with their religious beliefs is no different from selling their product to people who don’t believe as they do.”
While a corporation is a legal entity, a corporation cannot carry a gun. A corporation can not vote. A corporation can not do a number of things that a individuals can do.
You should learn what “standing” means.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Double BUMP!
1) the private acts of consenting adults
versus
2) the public sanctioning and support of such acts.
What has happened is sodomites have fought for the first right but have also seemed to have successfully confused the first item with the second item, calling the second item a "right" (which it is not), and labelled it "gay rights", an oxymoron. Since it is a states' issue, not a legitimate federal issue, it is up to the people of each state to decide on these matters. But IMO, the first item is unjustly made illegal and the second item is unjustly made legal.
Abortion, on the other hand is murder regardless of what the perps call it. It is taking the life of another and should be illegal. But again, it is a state's issue so it's up to the people of each state to decide. In the case of abortion, the feds have illegally and unconstitutionally interfered with state laws that almost universally banned abortion.
(Federal law, BTW, in any of these social issues are invalid per se because they are unconstitutional, outside the bounds of constitutional delegation of power to the federal government.)
Not sure of the parallel. Disease, early natural death, and mental disease do not interfere with another's freedom nor are they issues of prohibition by law. Nor is "propensity."
But abusive acts against a child certainly should be illegal.
But who knows what "other" factors will come into play- It's a toss up.
Hm, thank you for sharing those.
What you say is quite encouraging.
Yes, I know what “standing” is.
The Supreme Court isn’t going to accept a case, hold hearings, write decisions and then announce the plaintiff has no standing.
A corporation is simply an association of individuals that happens to be recognized as a legal entity. I see no reason why an association of individuals should not have the same free rights as the individuals that make up the association.
> Yes, I know what “standing” is.
>
> The Supreme Court isn’t going to accept a case, hold hearings, write decisions and then announce the plaintiff has no standing.
I think you missed the dry cynicism [and possibly sarcasm] in my post — the underlying point I was illustrating is that this court has neither the integrity nor inclination to address the real problems in the case, they will avoid responsibility/accountability where they can, and when they cannot they will pull shit out of their asses whereupon we’ll be told that it’s the golden-standard of wisdom, that they’re the ones who decide what is and isn’t constitutional, etc.
You are mistaken - it doesn't "happen" to be anything. A corporation is an association of natural persons who want to avoid their personal responsibilities for their actions. Therefore they file an act to surrender their rights to the government, in exchange for limited privileges, and to be considered as "individuals" instead of natural persons, and their association as a "legal entity" that is thereupon seen as acting in their place.
It is very common, so it goes unnoticed. But it is literally black magic. It is sorcery. It is the creation, through words, of a fake "person" designed to enable wrongdoers to escape answering for their wrongs (if they should do any).
As such it is literally a deal with the devil. And it is the sole creation of the government, who owns it in its entirety. It has no rights, only privileges granted to it in order to support the needs of the government - not the corporation or its individuals.
People forget ALL of that, but the government does not. And then when the government decides what benefits IT, the people in the corporation try to claim their "rights."
They sold their rights for limited indemnification from suit - the "privilege" of not having to answer for their actions.
Deal with the devil, you're gonna get burned - and it's you're own fault.
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.