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.
Ping.
I hope that Catholic and Protestant Hospitals can use this somehow to keep Obamacare from forcing them to kill babies.
..the hair ball starts to unravel
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.
Next stop, SCOTUS...where Judge Roberts will crap out another BS ruling.
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.
Full opinion here: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/947B9C4D8A1E54E785257C16004E80C9/$file/13-5069-1464136.pdf
that is until Chief Justice Roberts morphs it into another constitutional tax--
Gee, too bad Obamacide doesn’t have a severablity clause.
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.
Janice Rogers Brown would have made a great Supreme Court Justice.
No Severability clause.
The entire law “has” been struck down...../s
Like the government recognizes law anymore, except that which they insist on imposing.
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.
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!
Whatz wrong with you?
I like chimps.
The law was written for chumps....
BY chumps. The rest of us non-chumps are paying for it.
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.
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.