Posted on 11/01/2013 10:32:01 AM PDT by GonzoII
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.
Blacks are being replaced by hispanics. The problem is that RINOs don't give them a vision to trust. Conservatives can.
One of my favorites
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510443/posts
Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom (Janice Rogers Brown Speech to Institute for Justice)
He Pres, you POS, we have just what you need to take away the pain!
“Blacks are being replaced by hispanics.”
As a life-long CA resident, I can tell you that Blacks were behind the discontinuance of the Bracero Program here after WWII (actually it went into the ‘60’s as I recall). The Bracero Program was a “guest worker” system which allowed Mexicans to legally come here to work in agriculture so long as they went home to Mexico periodically. The Blacks were pitching that these “guest workers” were taking jobs that they wanted. And they were successful in getting the program terminated. But the Blacks never took those jobs, my guess, because it’s damned hard, back breaking work! Somehow the Black’s who in the past, worked in farm labor in the South, were no longer interested in the West!
This is good news.
His turn-around on this looks exactly like the typical Democrat blackmail behavior. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it fits the mold.
I still have my Allen West bumper sticker on my vehicle
100x better than Justice pumpkin head Roberts (compromised)
Yes. I thought she had a chance because she was both black and female (in addition to being brilliant), but if the person in question is not a Dem, then they’re not “really” black or female.
Look at poor Justice Thomas, who has been excluded by the black staff from speaking at predominantly black high schools - despite the fact that he grew up in poverty in Georgia, son of a single mother with substance abuse problems and raised by his grandparents during the time of segregation. He went to Catholic school and the nuns made him keep working and he did and we see the results now. But, according to the Dems, he’s not a good role model for the hoodie crowd.
Of all the things that tick me off about liberals, this is at the top of my list.
I think the bracero program was really destroyed by the labor unions. But one of the problems with blacks is that they are easily used by unions or virtually anybody who wants to use them by playing to their grudges.
We have plenty of jobs for strong young people in Florida that require nothing but trustworthiness, both in showing up and behaving decently on the job, and the ability to follow orders. Who has these jobs? Mostly immigrants, whether legal or illegal (this includes lots of Latin Americans and some Bosnians) because the young black people don’t learn enough in school to get a better job but on the other hand consider manual labor beneath them. Mexicans don’t; they just want to make money and move on.
A casual question whispered to him asking about his adopted kids will guarantee the dread pirate Roberts will follow obamatollah’s orders.
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.