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

Skip to comments.

[D.C. Circuit] Court Rules Obama Admin Canít Make Catholic Family Business Follow HHS Mandate
Life News.com ^ | 11/1/13 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 11/01/2013 10:32:01 AM PDT by GonzoII

Court Rules Obama Admin Can’t Make Catholic Family Business Follow HHS Mandate

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 11/1/13 1:07 PM

A powerful federal appeals court ruled today that a Catholic family-run business does not have to comply with the Obamacare abortion mandate requiring it to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.

Francis A. Gilardi, Jr. and Philip M. Gilardi, two brothers who own and control two companies that are involved in the processing, packaging, and transportation of fresh produce, filed suit against the Obama administration on behalf of their business, Freshway Foods, a nearly 25 year old family-owned fresh produce processor and packer, which serves 23 states and has 340 full-time employees.

Both companies are located in Sidney, Ohio, a city in west-central Ohio located about 40 miles north of Dayton. The owners, who are Catholic, contend that the HHS mandate requiring coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs – violates their religious beliefs.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — the second most influential bench in the land behind the Supreme Court — ruled in favor of the brothers. Requiring companies to cover their employees’ contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control and abortion on religious grounds.

“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.

“They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong,” Brown wrote.

The Obama administration said that the requirement is necessary to protect women’s health and abortion rights. The judges were unconvinced that forcing companies to violate their religious rights was appropriate.

Brown wrote that “it is clear the government has failed to demonstrate how such a right — whether described as noninterference, privacy, or autonomy — can extend to the compelled subsidization of a woman’s procreative practices.”

“The provision of these services — even without the contraceptive mandate — by and large fulfills the statutory command for insurers to provide gender-specific preventive care,” she wrote. “At the very least, the statutory scheme will not go to pieces.”

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

Conservative legal expert Ed Whelan writes at NRO about the case:

1. The primary opinion, by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, rules, first, that the closely-held companies that the Gilardis run do not have any rights under RFRA. Judge Brown determines that “secular corporations” do not have free-exercise rights. And although the line between secular and religious corporations might not be easy to draw (and does not turn on the for-profit/nonprofit distinction), the plaintiff companies conceded that they are religious corporations. (Slip op. at 7-15.)

But, Brown rules, the Gilardis themselves have been injured by the HHS mandate in a way that is separate and distinct from the injury to their companies. (Slip op. at 15-17.) The HHS mandate burdens their exercise of religion by pressuring them to approve and endorse the inclusion of objectionable coverage in their companies’ health plans. “They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong.” (Slip op. at 20; see generally pp. 17-23.) The government’s supposedly compelling interest is nebulous (slip op. at 23-28), and even if it were compelling, the HHS mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest (slip op. at 28-32.)

Petitions for certiorari from three federal appellate rulings on the HHS mandate are already before the Supreme Court. It is a very safe bet that the Court will grant review in one or more of the cases. Today’s ruling makes it all the more likely that the Court will ensure that the questions presented extend beyond the RFRA rights of for-profit corporations to include the rights of their individual owners.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: catholic; courts; hhs; hhsmandate; law; obama; obamacare; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
" 'They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong,' Brown wrote."
1 posted on 11/01/2013 10:32:02 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ping.


2 posted on 11/01/2013 10:33:24 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
COOL!

I hope that Catholic and Protestant Hospitals can use this somehow to keep Obamacare from forcing them to kill babies.

3 posted on 11/01/2013 10:34:29 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

..the hair ball starts to unravel


4 posted on 11/01/2013 10:35:32 AM PDT by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; All

WOW!

Let’s pray for Brown! This is the right answer!

God’s grace does not go unanswered by the devil, who can cause a lot of mischief if we are lax about the Lord.


5 posted on 11/01/2013 10:37:18 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Next stop, SCOTUS...where Judge Roberts will crap out another BS ruling.


6 posted on 11/01/2013 10:38:25 AM PDT by Farnsworth (Now playing in America: "Stupid is the new normal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Janice Rogers Brown
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“Janice Brown” redirects here. For the superintendent, see Janice Brown (superintendent).
Janice Rogers Brown
Janice Rogers Brown.jpg
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Incumbent
Assumed office
June 10, 2005
Appointed by George W. Bush
Preceded by Stephen Williams
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California
In office
May 2, 1996 – June 10, 2005
Appointed by Pete Wilson
Preceded by Ronald George
Succeeded by Carol Corrigan
Personal details
Born May 11, 1949 (age 64)
Greenville, Alabama, U.S.
Alma mater California State University, Sacramento
University of California, Los Angeles
University of Virginia

Janice Rogers Brown (born May 11, 1949) is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She previously was an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, holding that post from May 2, 1996 until her appointment to the D.C. Circuit.

President George W. Bush nominated her to her current position in 2003. However, her nomination was stalled in the U.S. Senate for almost two years because of Democratic opposition. She began serving as a federal appellate court judge on June 8, 2005.


7 posted on 11/01/2013 10:40:05 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

"I can't wait!!!"


8 posted on 11/01/2013 10:43:13 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Full opinion here: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/947B9C4D8A1E54E785257C16004E80C9/$file/13-5069-1464136.pdf


9 posted on 11/01/2013 10:43:40 AM PDT by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
This is great news... that is until Chief Justice Roberts morphs it into another constitutional tax--
10 posted on 11/01/2013 10:43:51 AM PDT by Bender2 ("I've got a twisted sense of humor, and everything amuses me." RAH Beyond this Horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
I thought this would be so easy and now all I've got is a headache.
11 posted on 11/01/2013 10:47:17 AM PDT by JPG (Yes We Can morphs into Make It Hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Gee, too bad Obamacide doesn’t have a severablity clause.


12 posted on 11/01/2013 10:48:32 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Chief John RobsUS is a catholic supposedly. He’s been given another chance to vote correctly or his soul has been corrupted on this one.


13 posted on 11/01/2013 10:49:31 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Janice Rogers Brown would have made a great Supreme Court Justice.


14 posted on 11/01/2013 10:58:45 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

No Severability clause.

The entire law “has” been struck down...../s

Like the government recognizes law anymore, except that which they insist on imposing.


15 posted on 11/01/2013 10:59:16 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Yes, I think you’re right. One of the things pointed out very early about this was that there was no severability clause.

It was a poorly written law (that could have been written by chimps on drugs) and nobody reviewed it because it was so huge.


16 posted on 11/01/2013 11:00:48 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Judge Brown is also an African American. Bravo for her! She is in the mold of Col. Allen West and Dr. Ben Carson. These people are blunting the disgraceful behavior of Barak Obama!


17 posted on 11/01/2013 11:16:02 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: livius

Whatz wrong with you?

I like chimps.

The law was written for chumps....


18 posted on 11/01/2013 11:17:12 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

BY chumps. The rest of us non-chumps are paying for it.


19 posted on 11/01/2013 11:19:41 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; ADemocratNoMore; Akron Al; arbee4bush; agrace; ATOMIC_PUNK; Badeye; Bikers4Bush; ...

Ohio Ping
Francis A. Gilardi, Jr. and Philip M. Gilardi, two brothers who own and control two companies that are involved in the processing, packaging, and transportation of fresh produce,...

snip

Both companies are located in Sidney, Ohio, a city in west-central Ohio located about 40 miles north of Dayton. The owners, who are Catholic, contend that the HHS mandate requiring coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs – violates their religious beliefs.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — the second most influential bench in the land behind the Supreme Court — ruled in favor of the brothers. Requiring companies to cover their employees’ contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control and abortion on religious grounds.


20 posted on 11/01/2013 11:41:53 AM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 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