Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court tosses ObamaCare contraception ruling
The Hill ^ | April 27, 2015 | Sarah Ferris

Posted on 04/27/2015 8:46:08 AM PDT by jazusamo

The Supreme Court on Monday gave new life to a lawsuit challenging ObamaCare’s contraception mandate, striking down a previous ruling in favor of the federal government.

An appeals court in Cincinnati will now reconsider

the legal challenge from the Catholic groups in Michigan and Tennessee that had sought exemptions from an ObamaCare provision that requires employers to cover birth control for all workers.

The justices asked the lower court to reconsider the case in light of last year's landmark ruling on the contraception mandate. That ruling, which was issued last June, decided that the arts-and-crafts retailer, Hobby Lobby, could seek an exemption from the contraception mandate for religious reasons. Since then, religious-affiliated companies and organizations have revived their legal challenges of the provision.

The ruling in Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell marks the third time in a year that the court has thrown out decisions in favor of the Obama administration, sending the cases back to the lower courts.

The court also gave hope to Catholic groups last month when it struck down a lower court’s ruling requiring the University of Notre Dame to follow the birth control mandate. That court will now revisit the case from the Roman Catholic university.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; US: California; US: Indiana; US: Michigan; US: Ohio; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: 0carenightmare; 6circuitappealscourt; abortion; california; cincinnati; contraception; deathpanels; homosexualagenda; indiana; mandate; michigan; mikepence; nancypelosi; notredame; obamacare; ohio; popefrancis; rfra; romancatholicism; scotus; scotusobamacare; tennessee; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
More good news.
1 posted on 04/27/2015 8:46:08 AM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
The law has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and they still won't kill the monster!
2 posted on 04/27/2015 8:50:03 AM PDT by Know et al (Keep on Freepin'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

SCOTUS Ping.


3 posted on 04/27/2015 8:51:04 AM PDT by jazusamo (0bama to go 'full-Mussolini' after elections: Mark Levin....and the turkey has.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

>> The justices asked the lower court to reconsider the case

...asked??!?


4 posted on 04/27/2015 9:10:11 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (There is no "allah" but satan, and mohammed was his demon-possessed tool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

I guess that’s PC language for “you will” now. :)


5 posted on 04/27/2015 9:14:27 AM PDT by jazusamo (0bama to go 'full-Mussolini' after elections: Mark Levin....and the turkey has.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above to donate or become a monthly donor!

6 posted on 04/27/2015 9:25:14 AM PDT by jazusamo (0bama to go 'full-Mussolini' after elections: Mark Levin....and the turkey has.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
A very clear message was sent last November that the American people do not want this crap sandwich health care law. It is now nearing the 5th month that all those new congress critters have been in office and this monstrosity is still the law of the land?

In-frickin-excusable!

New Congress, get off your ass and kill this law or we'll fire your ass and elect someone who will pay attention and do their damn job!

Contraception mandate before the Supreme Court? Kill the law! End of discussion. No need for Supreme Court to hear arguments about a law that doesn't exist if you had done your Number 1 Job!

7 posted on 04/27/2015 9:33:40 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys-Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat-But they know what's best for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

8 posted on 04/27/2015 9:57:47 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

In this case, this is more of a courtesy order.

The lower court will have to come up with a really good and different reason to keep their decision.


9 posted on 04/27/2015 10:03:55 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

Elections have consequences and, for the most part, the SCOTUS reflects popular will.


10 posted on 04/27/2015 10:07:10 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

It’s an abortion exemption. Contraception control is already a done deal in favor of the left.


11 posted on 04/27/2015 10:13:19 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

The only way to have a new congress is to replace every one of them. As long as the old timers are in office there will be no change.


12 posted on 04/27/2015 10:51:50 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Obama voters are my enemy. And so are RINO voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican
The only way to have a new congress is to replace every one of them. As long as the old timers are in office there will be no change.

A modest first step is to start with dumping the leadership of both parties (including committees.) I that doesn't convey the message, clearly, go to step 2.

13 posted on 04/27/2015 11:35:57 AM PDT by publius911 (If you like Obamacare, You'll LOVE ObamaWeb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants; ADemocratNoMore; Akron Al; arbee4bush; agrace; ATOMIC_PUNK; Badeye; ...

Pinging...(FYI)!


14 posted on 04/27/2015 12:43:34 PM PDT by Las Vegas Dave (The democ"RAT"ic party preys on the ignorant..!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

>> a ruling in favor of the federal government.

Such an ominous concept.


15 posted on 04/27/2015 1:01:38 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
"That ruling, which was issued last June, decided that the arts-and-crafts retailer, Hobby Lobby, could seek an exemption from the contraception mandate for religious reasons. Since then, religious-affiliated companies and organizations have revived their legal challenges of the provision."

This subPreme ruling may in fact be destroying the right 6to appeal for religious reasons, since the lower court ruled that Hobby Lobby could appeal on religious grounds and scotus evacuated that ruling.

16 posted on 04/27/2015 1:42:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ...

Thanks Las Vegas Dave.


17 posted on 04/27/2015 2:10:40 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"
I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.
[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.
[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]

18 posted on 04/27/2015 2:12:13 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Why do the Supremes always “ send[ing] the cases back to the lower courts” to make a decision on the botched decision they rendered in the first place?

This is always the way with conservative cases. Liberals get a stamped-in-stone opinion.


19 posted on 04/27/2015 2:24:53 PM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
It is now nearing the 5th month that all those new congress critters have been in office and this monstrosity is still the law of the land?

Agreed. But to be fair, how is a repeal possible with the Chief Marxist unwilling to sign it?

20 posted on 04/27/2015 2:26:07 PM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson