Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 63
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE



    Here's the right answer while waiting for HRs wife to reply. US Supreme Court justices do not advertise their party affiliation because they're not supposed to consider partisan ideology when making decisions. Unfortunately, see my remarks above where certain justices vote party line most of the time on big issues.

    Of course, they're party affiliated. They still have the right to vote after being elected as justice. They're just not supposed to brag about it or let it influence their decisions but as we see they do and it does influence them.


    The president appoints the justices so that makes it politically affiliated right there. Presidents campaign to put judges in with their views. Boosters support candidates just to get justices in with their views. Look at the judges on the left especially the last two put in by OBY, extreme liberals - Kagen, Sottlemeyer plus Ginsberg before that. All DEMs all the time at least in all the major decisions like this one.

    Nixon got a bunch of conservative judges in that is affecting the court now like in this last decision however, it's now more difficult to put conservatives in. Reagan nominated Borke, a Christian conservative and the liberals in congress blocked him out. He then nominated Kennedy who was moderate and more to their liking and was unanimously confirmed, and he is always called the swing vote because he voted liberal on so many decisions. He was expected to on O BUMMER CARE but Roberts turned out to be the swing vote.

    Same thing with Roberts. W thought he was putting a conservative in. Then again maybe he wasn't because he has crossed the line, same as Kennedy and in the most important decision of our life time - OBUMMER CARE.

    It was funny but Karl Rove was on the nominating committee for a judge that recommended to Bush. Rove asked who he most respected that served on the court. He named a guy who wavered on many issues not siding with any one group and that's what he became but W still thought he was getting a conservative to placate those who elected him.

    Same with Souter. His pop nominated Souter who was supposed to be a conservative. They grilled him with the questions and he almost dropped out when again, Congress DEMs tried to stonewall him but he answered the questions the way the conservatives wanted but then rebelled once on the bench.

    Finally he gets in and voted liberal most of the time including the Florida re-count after the Bush-Gore election. His fellow GOPs voted for Bush but he voted against the family that put him in. However, when he retired he met with the conservative branch to see how long they would still be there and they said a while longer, enough time for another GOP to come in and maintain the balance of power. In
    the end he cared or somewhat care for the GOP ideology.

    In short, make no mistake about it. These are party affiliated positions and people are nominated by presidents who think their decisions will inflict his party's views at least on the major cases.

    It doesn't work that way as we have seen.

    That's the way it is.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 02:39 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.
    THE BITCH IS DEAD - JAMES BOND.




  2. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    This is why it's getting hard to nominate a conservative judge. From WIKI:

    This is strictly party affiliation. See groups that stopped his confirmation.
    Civil Liberties Union also opposed William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito.

    Even JFK insisted on an ideological appointment to the Court when he chose Arthur Goldberg, a distinguished lawyer and darling of the unions - ALL DEMS - ALL THE TIME.


    ________________________
    U.S. Supreme Court nomination[edit]
    Main article: Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination


    Bork (right) with President Ronald Reagan, 1987
    President Reagan nominated Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987 to replace Lewis Powell. A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued. Opposition was partly fueled by civil rights and women's rights groups concerned with Bork's opposition to the authority claimed by the federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states (at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax),[19] and his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork was one of only three Supreme Court nominees, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito, to ever be opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[20] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy",[15] most notably, according to critics, for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.

    Before Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell's expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward.[21] Democrats also warned Reagan there would be a fight if Bork were nominated.[22] Nevertheless, Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

    Following Bork's nomination to the Court, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork declaring:

    Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.[23][24]

    Bork responded, "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate."[25] In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, "but it worked."[25] Bork also contended in his best-selling[26] book, The Tempting of America, that the brief prepared for Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[27]

    Television advertisements narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination. The rapid response to Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech stunned the Reagan White House, and the accusations went unanswered for two and a half months.[28]

    During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper.[29] Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.[30]

    To pro-choice rights legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle. Bork was faulted for his bluntness before the committee, including his criticism of the reasoning underlying Roe v. Wade.[citation needed]

    On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT)) all voting against him.[31]

    The vacant seat on the court to which Bork was nominated eventually went to Judge Anthony Kennedy who was unanimously approved by the Senate, 97-0.[32]

    Bork, unhappy with his treatment in the nomination process, resigned his appellate-court judgeship in 1988.[33]

    Bork as verb[edit]
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 02:25 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.
    THE BITCH IS DEAD - JAMES BOND.




  3. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    NIXON'S COURT.

    Like I posted above, presidential candidates campaign to put their views on the SC like here:


    ______________________________
    In his presidential campaign, Nixon had pledged to appoint a strict constructionist as Chief Justice.

    ____________________________

    From Wiki but it's spot on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...urt_candidates
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 02:35 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.
    THE BITCH IS DEAD - JAMES BOND.




  4. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    It was also interesting but depressing to see another land mark decision made at the same time as O BUMMER CARE where the court effectively erased the border of Arizona and Mexico.

    Kennedy and Roberts voted with the liberal branch in regard to
    immigration searches and seizure.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.
    THE BITCH IS DEAD - JAMES BOND.




  5. #17

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Two big problems with this ruling.

    1) Hobby Lobby's internal logic is inconsistent. If they protested on the basis that birth control prevents pregnancy, they should not still cover vasectomies. But they do still cover vasectomies. That is just hypocrisy. That's hypocrisy on an obvious and repugnant level.

    2) The ruling, as wickedsolo pointed out, opens the door for a lot in the future. The ruling essentially states that so long as a corporation believes something is true, the government should act as though the something is true. Hobby Lobby expressed belief that birth control is an abortifacient. Birth control is not an abortifacient. So, now, 100% demonstrably false belief is supposed to be respected? Kowtowed to, treated with kid gloves? No.

    This is a somewhat horrific ruling that I see changing resoundingly sometime in my life, probably in the next 10 years.
    Thoughts on Ray Rice: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/




  6. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia
    Posts
    519

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Two big problems with this ruling.

    1) Hobby Lobby's internal logic is inconsistent. If they protested on the basis that birth control prevents pregnancy, they should not still cover vasectomies. But they do still cover vasectomies. That is just hypocrisy. That's hypocrisy on an obvious and repugnant level.

    2) The ruling, as wickedsolo pointed out, opens the door for a lot in the future. The ruling essentially states that so long as a corporation believes something is true, the government should act as though the something is true. Hobby Lobby expressed belief that birth control is an abortifacient. Birth control is not an abortifacient. So, now, 100% demonstrably false belief is supposed to be respected? Kowtowed to, treated with kid gloves? No.

    This is a somewhat horrific ruling that I see changing resoundingly sometime in my life, probably in the next 10 years.
    Whew, I'm so glad someone else on this board has the same exact view as me. I was horrified with the ruling and hadn't expected it to go through. Sometimes I feel like we're going backwards...




  7. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,014

    SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Did any of you read the case facts or the ruling? Because it certainly appears some of you have not and instead have believed the rhetoric from the extreme sides in this case.

    For one, there were only 4 types of contraception Hobby Lobby (on behalf of their employees) opposed -- two forms of the morning after pill and two types of IUD's -- which they believed amounted to defacto abortions since they didn't allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus. All other forms of birth control are fine in their eyes, including vasectomy, birth control pills, condoms, etc, so I'm not sure where the hypocrisy claims are coming from.

    Second, this ruling isn't bestowing religious freedoms to a corporation as many are portraying it. It's a recognition that the employees of said cooperation have a right to free exercise of their religion at the work place. That's a distinction many on the left are refusing to accept.

    Lastly, the slippery slope argument about what it means in the future is a fallacy. Any SCOTUS ruling can be labeled as such so it means everything and nothing at the same time.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  8. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Did any of you read the case facts or the ruling? Because it certainly appears some of you have not and instead have believed the rhetoric from the extreme sides in this case.

    For one, there were only 4 types of contraception Hobby Lobby (on behalf of their employees) opposed -- two forms of the morning after pill and two types of IUD's -- which they believed amounted to defacto abortions since they didn't allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus. All other forms of birth control are fine in their eyes, including vasectomy, birth control pills, condoms, etc, so I'm not sure where the hypocrisy claims are coming from.


    No hypocrisy. The family originally wanted block their employees from seeing doctors on contraceptive issues they might have to pay for. They focused on what they could get - the 4 types because they induce abortions. Abortion is the issue here and this paves the way for other cases to throw the rest out and thus the mine field that Ginsberg speaks of. Keep it in context:

    The four include two “emergency contraceptives” — Plan B and ella — and two intrauterine devices (IUDs).
    Members of the Green family who own Hobby Lobby say those contraceptives are abortifacients — that they induce abortion.
    The point has led to some disputes in legal filings with the U.S. Supreme Court about the definitions of abortion and pregnancy.
    A group of obstetricians, gynecologists and other physicians told the justices that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and the contraceptives at issue can’t induce abortion because they only work before pregnancy.
    The Greens counter that the contraceptives can prevent the implantation in the uterus of a fertilized egg. They say that is the destruction of life and that forcing them to offer those contraceptives makes them complicit in abortion.
    If the U.S. Supreme Court rules for Hobby Lobby, the argument over specific kinds of contraceptives may be irrelevant.

    So there's no hypocrisy on the family's part. They got what they wanted.

    The link in the OP says this decision opens a pandora's box for the other specific issues which is what Ginsberg meant when she said the court was walking into a mine field. There are other cases before the court now.



    Second, this ruling isn't bestowing religious freedoms to a corporation as many are portraying it.

    It's a lot more than what they had a week ago and more will be thrown out of the act. After the beatings that Christians have taken since Wade vs Roe, make no mistake about it, it's a big moral W for the religious right.


    It's a recognition that the employees of said cooperation have a right to free exercise of their religion at the work place. That's a distinction many on the left are refusing to accept.

    As stated in the OP it only applies to Christian companies and non-profit Christian companies but it's big after having had the entire act OKed. HOBBY LOBBY doesn't have to pay for the above mentioned contraceptives for their employes so it's a big victory for them but if these other issues are favorably passed, then it's a bigger W for the evangelical movement. Had they rejected paying for the above, they could have been fined hundreds of thousands pr yr by IRS according to the law. Read Gisnberg's and the rest of the opposing side remarks in the links above. They're not happy campers.

    BTW, go a google and see how many Christian non profit organizations there are, especially Christian colleges and universities. There's tons of them and they won't have to pay for these.


    Lastly, the slippery slope argument about what it means in the future is a fallacy. Any SCOTUS ruling can be labeled as such so it means everything and nothing at the same time.
    But fear not. The gov't will probably subsidize anyone who wants contraceptives that works for HOBBY LOBBY or other companies and the debt will go even higher and the country will crash even faster. Just ask Sandra Flutie. She got her free condoms.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-05-2014 at 09:33 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.
    THE BITCH IS DEAD - JAMES BOND.




  9. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    This is what Ginsberg meant when she said mine fied and why she is worried as the rest of the losing side.

    FROM FOX.COM/OPINION

    __________________________


    But the fate of the Obama administration’s so-called “accommodation” for religious non-profits is the subject of other lawsuits that are making their way through the lower courts now.

    The religious organizations that are plaintiffs in the 51 non-profit lawsuits filed so far are diverse in faith backgrounds and in purpose. They include religious hospitals, ministries, colleges and universities—including my alma maters, Franciscan University and the University of Notre Dame—as well as orders of priests and nuns, such as Priests for Life and the Little Sisters of the Poor.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-05-2014 at 01:15 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.
    THE BITCH IS DEAD - JAMES BOND.




  10. #22

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    This is what Ginsberg meant when she said mine fied and why she is worried as the rest of the losing side.

    FROM FOX.COM/OPINION

    __________________________


    But the fate of the Obama administration’s so-called “accommodation” for religious non-profits is the subject of other lawsuits that are making their way through the lower courts now.

    The religious organizations that are plaintiffs in the 51 non-profit lawsuits filed so far are diverse in faith backgrounds and in purpose. They include religious hospitals, ministries, colleges and universities—including my alma maters, Franciscan University and the University of Notre Dame—as well as orders of priests and nuns, such as Priests for Life and the Little Sisters of the Poor.
    This issue isn't really the slippery slope "minefield" that Ginsburg was threatening (that minefield had more to do with a flood of nebulous or fraudulent 'religious' objections to all manner of other government requirements).

    This issue that you mention above is very much related/similar to the Hobby Lobby issue. In fact, the Court issued an order on Thursday in Wheaton College v. Burwell indicating there is likely to be problems with the 'accommodation' requirements. The three female Justices dissented on the order, but their dissent was nonsensical to say the least. In fact, Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent, made it obvious she completely misunderstood the Hobby Lobby decision (by Alito). It is a rather embarrassing mistake, or at least it should be.

    The issue concerning the "accommodation" basically comes down to the issue of whether the entity who is objecting to the coverage and seeking the 'accommodation' has to fill out and sign EBSA Form 700 and submit it to their insurance provider (as well as to the federal government).

    The Form essentially requires the insurance provider to provide the 'contraceptives' without charging the objecting entity, so supposedly for 'free.' Besides the transparent accounting gimmick (as if something can actually be without 'cost' just because everyone pretends someone else is 'paying' for it), the issue is that the Form is seen as a directive from the objector, to the third party provider, to provide the objected-to contraceptives. These objecting entities do not want to be involved in providing these contraceptives at all, not just in terms of monetary cost but also in terms of being in a chain of directives to provide them.

    The temporary Court order in Wheaton College v. Burwell indicated that the College does not have to fill out the Form or send anything to the third party provider, but rather has to simply send an official letter of objection to the mandate to the government. At which point the government can/should, if it wishes, send whatever it wants to the third party provider demanding it provide the 'free' contraceptives to the employees.

    In short, the issue comes down to who tells the insurance provider they have to provide the 'free' contraceptives, the objector (through Form 700) or the government. The former can be seen as the objector being involved in the providing of the contraceptives, the latter cannot.

    As for Sotomayor's confusion regarding Alito's Hobby Lobby decision, she incorrectly asserts Alito indicated that the "accommodation" (as it currently stands) was endorsed by his decision, when in reality, he specifically said he was making no judgment on that except to show that in the Hobby Lobby decision, it clearly indicates that the government was not using the "least restrictive" way for it to achieve its goals of getting Hobby Lobby's employees the 'contraceptives,' as it had already designed a 'less restrictive' accommodation for non-profit religious groups. That Sotomayor either is not intelligent enough to understand the plain text of the decision or is not honest enough to present it as it was written, is very sad, but frankly it doesn't surprise me.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-05-2014 at 02:29 PM.




  11. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    This issue isn't really the slippery slope "minefield" that Ginsburg was threatening (that minefield had more to do with a flood of nebulous or fraudulent 'religious' objections to all manner of other government requirements).

    Maybe not entirely but they are non-profit Christian organizations and that is what's covered by this decision. Suits have been filed and can be amended so at the very least it's related to the mine field. You're right that she meant so much more. I kept it to the issue at hand, so the liberals have a lot to be worried about.

    This issue that you mention above is very much related/similar to the Hobby Lobby issue. In fact, the Court issued an order on Thursday in Wheaton College v. Burwell indicating there is likely to be problems with the 'accommodation' requirements. The three female Justices dissented on the order, but their dissent was nonsensical to say the least. In fact, Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent, made it obvious she completely misunderstood the Hobby Lobby decision (by Alito). It is a rather embarrassing mistake, or at least it should be.

    The issue concerning the "accommodation" basically comes down to the issue of whether the entity who is objecting to the coverage and seeking the 'accommodation' has to fill out and sign EBSA Form 700 and submit it to their insurance provider (as well as to the federal government).

    The Form essentially requires the insurance provider to provide the 'contraceptives' without charging the objecting entity, so supposedly for 'free.' Besides the transparent accounting gimmick (as if something can actually be without 'cost' just because everyone pretends someone else is 'paying' for it), the issue is that the Form is seen as a directive from the objector, to the third party provider, to provide the objected-to contraceptives. These objecting entities do not want to be involved in providing these contraceptives at all, not just in terms of monetary cost but also in terms of being in a chain of directives to provide them.

    The temporary Court order in Wheaton College v. Burwell indicated that the College does not have to fill out the Form or send anything to the third party provider, but rather has to simply send an official letter of objection to the mandate to the government. At which point the government can/should, if it wishes, send whatever it wants to the third party provider demanding it provide the 'free' contraceptives to the employees.

    In short, the issue comes down to who tells the insurance provider they have to provide the 'free' contraceptives, the objector (through Form 700) or the government. The former can be seen as the objector being involved in the providing of the contraceptives, the latter cannot.



    Last 2 sentences are directly related to the mine field. It's a big pandora's box getting very picky.


    As for Sotomayor's confusion regarding Alito's Hobby Lobby decision, she incorrectly asserts Alito indicated that the "accommodation" (as it currently stands) was endorsed by his decision, when in reality, he specifically said he was making no judgment on that except to show that in the Hobby Lobby decision, it clearly indicates that the government was not using the "least restrictive" way for it to achieve its goals of getting Hobby Lobby's employees the 'contraceptives,' as it had already designed a 'less restrictive' accommodation for non-profit religious groups. That Sotomayor either is not intelligent enough to understand the plain text of the decision or is not honest enough to present it as it was written, is very sad, but frankly it doesn't surprise me.
    Ditto and good post.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.
    THE BITCH IS DEAD - JAMES BOND.




  12. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    These are six more cases field in the court with the last two in Feb so I think they're covered with today's decision or are they asking for more?


    Heritage reports that two more lawsuits have been filed against the Obama administration over Obamacare's HHS mandate, by religiously affiliated organizations, added to the previous filed brings the total up to six.

    That is not counting the dozen plus attorney generals for a variety of states that have already indicated they too will be filing court challenges against the so-called Contraception mandate that also includes forcing religious groups to offer insurance that covers sterilization and abortion induing drugs to their members.

    Today, Geneva College, a private institution in Pennsylvania associated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, held a press conference announcing it has filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration over the mandate’s infringement on religious liberty.

    [This was in the HObby Decision.][/I]

    The college takes issue with the mandate’s requirement to provide health insurance coverage of drugs like Plan B and ella, which can sometimes cause abortions in early pregnancy, at no cost to the insured. To effectively subsidize chemical abortions violates the college’s deeply held moral and religious beliefs and runs roughshod over the institution’s religious liberty and conscience rights.

    “The government shouldn’t be able to force anyone to buy or sell insurance that subsidizes morally objectionable treatments,” said Geneva College President Ken Smith.

    While the lawsuits filed this week focus on the mandate’s threat to religious freedom, the violations of liberty enabled by Obamacare’s unprecedented federal overreach could extend far beyond religious institutions.

    “People of faith shouldn’t be punished by the state for following that faith in making decisions for themselves or their organizations,” said Greg Baylor, senior counsel at ADF. “Every American should know that a government with the power to do this to anyone can do this—and worse—to everyone.”

    The Alliance Defense Fund also filed suit against the Obama Administration over the weekend on behalf of Louisiana College, a small Southern Baptist school located in the middle of the state. Like Geneva College and many others, Louisiana College holds deep moral objections to abortion and cannot in good conscience subsidize health insurance coverage of drugs that can end a pregnancy.



    Read the rest over at Heritage.

    Louisiana College press release below:

    ADF, Louisiana College challenge Obama mandate
    February 20th, 2012

    Federal lawsuit challenges Obama administration’s latest attack on religious freedom

    ALEXANDRIA, La. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Louisiana College Saturday against the Obama administration. The lawsuit challenges the administration’s unconstitutional mandate that religious employers provide abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception at no cost to employees regardless of religious or moral objections.

    “People of faith shouldn’t be punished by the government for following their beliefs when making decisions for themselves or their organizations,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “The Obama administration invented a fake ‘right’ to get ‘free’ abortion pills and sterilization and elevated it above real freedoms protected by the First Amendment. This calculated and intentional attempt to eradicate constitutional protections should terrify every freedom-loving American.”

    “The Obama administration has purposely transformed a non-existent problem–access to contraception–into a constitutional crisis,” said ADF-allied attorney and co-counsel Mike Johnson, dean of Louisiana College’s Pressler School of Law. “This mandate offers no choice; Americans either comply and abandon their convictions or resist and be punished.”

    President Obama held a press conference on Feb. 10 to offer a “compromise” under which some religious non-profit organizations would not have to comply with the mandate. Instead, the employer’s insurer would be required to offer the employer’s employees the same coverage at no charge. The “compromise”; however, does not exist in the rules or guidance Obama issued on Feb. 10, and the administration is not required to formally propose it.

    Theriot explained that even if the proposed change did exist and had coherent boundaries, it would still require the employer to facilitate coverage by providing and paying for an objectionable plan, the costs of which would be passed on to the employers and/or employees via premiums.

    “The time for silence is over,” said Louisiana College President Dr. Joe W. Aguillard. “Louisiana College will not sit by and allow this or any government to usurp our God-given religious freedoms and our time-honored Baptist heritage.”

    The new lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Louisiana College v. Sebelius, argues that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First and Fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.


    Previous WuA related posts

    Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist and Jewish Leaders Swear They Will Not Comply To Obama's Abortion Mandate

    Priests for Life Associate Director is Arrested Outside White House

    Harry Reid's Response To Americans Worried About Obama's Attack On Religion: 'Calm Down'

    Catholic League: Obama Legacy- 'The President That Brought The Culture War To Boil'

    Religious Freedom Lawsuits Against Obama's s Abortion Drug And Contraception Mandate

    Catholic Churches And Bishop of Marquette Punch Back At Obama's War On Religion

    Catholic League Prepared To Fight Back Against Obama's War On Religion

    .
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-05-2014 at 06:13 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.
    THE BITCH IS DEAD - JAMES BOND.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland