Posted on 11/21/2017 7:31:21 PM PST by Kaslin
The Little Sisters of the Poor, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asked the 19th Circuit Court of Appeals Monday to prevent California and Pennsylvania in their attempt to roll back President Trump’s October 6th broadening of religious exemptions for groups, like the Little Sisters, with religious and moral objections to covering contraception.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued the Trump administration immediately following the new religious exemptions to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. The lawsuit claimed the rule change was unconstitutional because it targets and harms women by denying their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law and that it allows employers to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against employees.
Pennsylvania sued the Trump administration over the change shortly after.
“Millions of women could be denied needed contraceptive care against the advice of science, public health and medical professionals,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said at a press conference he held at a Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania clinic in Philadelphia to announce the lawsuit.
“Sadly Josh Shapiro and Xavier Becerra think attacking nuns is a way to score political points,” Becket Law’s Senior Counsel Mark Rienzi commented on the lawsuits. “These men may think their campaign donors want them to sue nuns, but our guess is most taxpayers disagree. No one needs nuns in order to get contraceptives, and no one needs these guys reigniting the last administration’s divisive and unnecessary culture war.”
"These States are specifically targeting religious groups. Pennsylvania has never required anyone to provide contraceptives,” Rienzi told reporters on a press call Tuesday. “Now Pennsylvania is claiming religious groups have to provide these services."
"Legally there is no good argument for what these states are doing," he added.
“We just want to be able to continue our religious mission of caring for the elderly poor as we have over 175 years,” Mother Loraine Marie Maguire with the Little Sisters of the Poor commented Tuesday. “We pray that these state governments will leave us alone and let us do our work in peace.”
The nuns, who care for the elderly poor in the U.S., finally began to see some relief along with other nonprofit religious organizations that had been involved in a five-year long lawsuit against the Obama administration over the contraceptive mandate.
Paying for or supporting the use of contraception is contrary to fundamental Catholic moral teaching. The Obama administration offered the groups an accommodation that would delegate the contraception coverage to a third party, but they objected that the process still left them complicit in the coverage.
Their case was remanded to appeals courts with direction from the Supreme Court that the Obama administration and the organizations work out a compromise. Rienzi told reporters on the press call that that original lawsuit is still ongoing with the next update expected in mid-December. He added that the Supreme Court’s injunction in that case still applies which making it less likely that the states’ new lawsuits will succeed.
Notice that all those sins by definition involve a nonconsenting party, whereas sodomy often occurs between consenting adults.
NO. You are wrong again. People CAN consent to have a person “murder” them, but the consenting murderer would still be prosecuted with murder—as a doctor would prior to the “legalization” of sin (killing old people/euthanasia). Why? Because it is evil (sin) to kill others except in self defense.
Suicide would not need consent but if a doctor agreed (consented) to kill the person they would have lost their license and been put in prison (in a true justice system which we had until our present unconstitutional Vice System).
You still don’t understand Natural Rights, do you? “Consenting” to do evil, irrational things to others is using others in immoral objectified way-—stripping them of dignity. There is NEVER a God-given “Right” to do evil.....EVER!!!! Even if you lust or are warped enough to think doing vile inhumane things to others is “fun”.
So, if the State wanted to-—it would be constitutional to have it a felony to commit sodomy-—like it was when we had a TRUE JUSTICE (virtue) System before 2003/Lawrence v. Texas. All John Maynard Keynes and his homosexual orgy buddies could (and should) have been put in prison for their vile, dehumanizing behaviors, even if they didn’t bring in all the little boys to be raped. We had sodomy laws on the books for hundreds of years. England had to have the death penalty imposed for sodomites, especially on their ships, cuz they would attack all their young sailors and the cabin boys.
Justices Scalia and Thomas were correct. We now have a Vice System (which is unconstitutional since it promotes vice by allowing evil to be promoted and glorified to little children to warp their concepts of male/female and flourishing relationships which degrade others for lust which is the opposite of “love”. Love is selfless and a virtue. Homosexuals don’t “love” those they desire to degrade and use for their own warped lust—as a means to an end—in irrational, vile ways.
Promoting vice in a “legal” system destroys virtue formation and there is NO FREEDOM and NO FREE WILL when you have no virtue in people. Vice breeds vice (slavery only) and collapses civil society (Cicero/Founders). All Founders stated that a free Republic is only possible with a virtuous people (people who don’t use others in vile, irrational, evil ways).
Agreed - the Constitution is silent on the matter so allows states to legislate as they see fit.
We had sodomy laws on the books for hundreds of years.
Alabama, Arizona, North Carolina, and Rhode Island never had laws against marital sodomy.
Promoting vice in a “legal” system
Still beating this straw man? To refrain from having a law against a behavior is NOT to "promote" that behavior.
No Founders stated that law could make a people virtuous.
I hope there’s a special place in hell for the men and women who torture the Little Sisters of the Poor.
But the Founders never advocated getting rid of laws because “laws don’t make people virtuous”.
And they were perfectly fine with laws against sodomy, btw.
Well, after since a few faggots in TX engineered to get a cop to catch them sodomizing each other, and their arrest led to a case reaching the SCOTUS - Lawrence VS TX - and the rotten SCOTUS said that state laws against sodomy are illegal - sodomy is now a protected and favored behavior, legally speaking. It opened the flood gates for legalized and government authorized perversion in the military, government, educational institutions K-PhD, industry and business and the like.
When sodomy was illegal, and not federally protected, none of the list could happen.
Straw man - nobody on this thread has advocated getting rid of laws because “laws don’t make people virtuous”.
And they were perfectly fine with laws against sodomy, btw.
And accepted if not supported slavery - they were human and didn't always live up to the excellent principles they proclained.
I am sure there is.
Alabama, Arizona, North Carolina, and Rhode Island never had laws against marital sodomy.
You really think you’re clever. Maybe too much dope smoking has shut down too many firing neurons or how ever it destroys cognitive thinking.
So what?
I'm clever enough to reduce you to ad hominems.
Alabama, Arizona, North Carolina, and Rhode Island never had laws against marital sodomy.
So what?
So the unqualified statement "sodomy was illegal" is inaccurate; there was never a time in our nation's history when all sodomy was illegal in every state.
No, I dislike trying to discuss with those who are dedicated to trickery tactics, especially when in support of vice in the name of so-called “freedom”.
What is your problem?
States only are OBLIGATED to promote virtue because without it there is no freedom. Allowing evil, vile behaviors (obscenity) is NEVER allowed, nor is it legal (until the 70s with the flipping of Good and Evil to the Satanic ethic system of sodomy and baby-killing, nihilistic “Rights’ You do understand the absurdity of applying the word “right” to any evil, vile, irrational use of the body like “sodomy”.
I am done typing to you-—you are a complete waste of my time. Bye.
In other words, our Constitution was destroyed completely since baby-killing and sodomy became protected and our legal system became a Vice System. We should have forced 5 so-called “Justices” into prison for treason.
When Laws don’t promote “public virtue” then they are “null and void”.
Never can a just, civil society promote evil, vile irrational acts that use others as a means to an end. It is Marxism, paganism —or whatever—which are religions and antithetical to the ONLY religion (worldview) which created the Constitution and the Justice (virtue) System.
It's not clear that government is capable of promoting virtue, much less that it can accomplish that end by enacting punishments for vice; my citations from Locke show that he held the opposite.
When you're losing on substance, blubber about "tactics."
My last comment to you on this matter:
Pro-dope pro-sodomy aholes who knowingly use slippery debate “tactics” are not worth wasting any of my time on.
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.