Posted on 12/26/2012 5:53:40 AM PST by rhema
A federal appeals court on Tuesday sided with Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College in a decision related to the ongoing court challenges to the Obama administration's birth control mandate. The court said it would hold the Obama administration to its promise to never implement the current birth control mandate and to create a new rule by August, as part of the court decision.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to give it updates every 60 days, beginning in February, until a new rule is issued in August. The lawsuits will be held in abeyance until that time.
"There will, the government said, be a different rule for entities like the appellants," the court wrote, "and we take that as a binding commitment. The government further represented that it would publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the new rule in the first quarter of 2013 and would issue a new Final Rule before August 2013. We take the government at its word and will hold it to it."
Sebelius first issued the rule in January. As part of the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," she ruled that employers must cover contraception, sterilization and some abortifacient drugs in their health care insurance for employees. There is a religious exemption, but the exemption is so narrow that most religious employers, including religious schools, are not exempt. There have been about 40 lawsuits related to the mandate.
President Barack Obama has promised to make an accommodation for religious employers, but the only accommodation, thus far, has been a grace period for some religious employers before they will be bound by the mandate.
"The D.C. Circuit has now made it clear that government promises and press conferences are not enough to protect religious freedom," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argued the case. "The court is not going to let the government slide by on non-binding promises to fix the problem down the road."
Duncan believes the decision is a major victory for opponents of the mandate because HHS is now bound by the court to never implement the mandate in its current form.
"This is a win not just for Belmont Abbey and Wheaton, but for all religious nonprofits challenging the mandate," added Duncan. "The government has now been forced to promise that it will never enforce the current mandate against religious employers like Wheaton and Belmont Abbey and a federal appellate court will hold the government to its word."
"The D.C. Circuit has now made it clear that government promises and press conferences are not enough to protect religious freedom," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argued the case. "The court is not going to let the government slide by on non-binding promises to fix the problem down the road."
“Fry ‘em”
What about us regular folks who don’t want 0bamacare? Do I, as an individual, get the same “exemption”?
And why does such a change in the law not require that it be re-written? Hence back thru Congress?
Rules and regs vs law? Seems a competent lawyer could snag that.
I wished this article had more about which judges on the DC Circuit heard the case and the vote.
Nevertheless this is a good sign.
There will no doubt be continued challenges to zerocare and so far SCOTUS is fine with the challenges continuing.
All we need is for Roberts to find another way to strike down the law and save face.
could be interesting to see how this dovetails into the 4th amendment
That is the Chicago way.
search and seizure?
splain please...
I didn’t think it was either legal or possible to hold the Federal Government accountable.
Momentum building on this? Belmont Abbey and religious colleges achieved a similar Court ruling on an exemption.
Brave Sons and Daughters True: I am proud of my alma mater!
Oh, yes it will. Religious freedom is in the hands of one government entity claiming to protect us from another government entity. We've already fallen for this trap once before.
It’s not even great in the short run, as it didn’t decide that the schools had any unalienable rights in this issue, but that the schools have some rights as granted by the government officials who made a promise.
That’s an interesting opinion to say the least.
I get the feeling that they are sick of being told one thing and doing another and consistently getting away with it.
The decision is a major joke. Here with this ruling we see not the rule of legitimate law being upheld or illegitimate law being st aside and voided -we see the rule of man being furthered. The vague law remains the same -this judge trumps Obama and rules his way today -who rules tomorrow?
equal protection
equal protection....scratch the4th.........14th! oops
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.