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

Skip to comments.

Obamacare birth control mandate doesn't violate nuns' rights: US ('Just submit and it will be OK')
AFP ^ | 1/4/2013

Posted on 01/04/2014 5:18:30 AM PST by markomalley

The US Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to throw out a challenge from a nuns' group against a birth control mandate in the Obamacare health reform law.

The Little Sisters of the Poor had asked the US high court to exempt it from the controversial birth control clause, saying that providing birth control was contrary to its religious beliefs.

The US government, in its written response, asked the court to lift the temporary block on birth control, arguing that the provision does not apply to the nuns anyway.

The Little Sisters' lawsuit is "not about the availability or adequacy of a religious accommodation," the Justice Department brief said.

Instead, the nuns group wants to "justify its refusal to sign a self-certification that secures the very religion-based exemption the objector seeks."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor had issued the temporary block on the birth control provision late Tuesday, giving the US government until Friday to provide its response.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; contraceptionmandate; deathpanels; littlesisters; littlesistersofpoor; lsotp; lsp; obamacare; soniasotomayor; zerocare

So the Church must now ask the secular government "permission" to actually live according to her doctrine.

Meanwhile, that formerly Catholic institution, Notre Shame, sees no issue and the "conservative" president of the USCCB grovels before the Beast.


Please, sir, may I have some more gruel?

1 posted on 01/04/2014 5:18:30 AM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Let’s see if Robert’s is going to sell his soul again.


2 posted on 01/04/2014 5:25:11 AM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Let’s see if Robert’s is going to sell his soul again.

And bring Sotomayor with him...

"John! How are you? Kids doing well? Jack, and...Josie? Good! Good! Listen, I need a favor. Talk to Sonia for me, OK? Tell her we've got some interesting things we'd like to discuss with her. Compensation? Sure! Sure! You know we take care of our own, right John? Excellent! Talk to you later! Bye!"


3 posted on 01/04/2014 5:29:28 AM PST by COBOL2Java (I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

First, they came for crackers though the DOJ.
Then, they came for the LEO on the border.
Then, they came for the TEA Party through the IRS.
Then, they came for Israelis,
and Christians in Egypt and Syria.
Then, they came for Fallujah.
Now, they come for the Nuns.

Apparently there is not a femtogram of ability
in EXEMPT DC to read, or care about, the US Constitution.


4 posted on 01/04/2014 5:33:17 AM PST by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Either the reporter is not making themselves clear, or the DoJ is really despicable.

By signing the document the nuns agree to the law as interpreted by the DoJ. But the law states that all health insurance must have birth control.

The only exempt groups are unions and other special interest groups.

Today the DoJ interprets the law one way, tomorrow another way.

Wonder why the law writers (Emmanual and others) felt the need to use the IRS and DoJ to enforce an extremely unpopular decision?

5 posted on 01/04/2014 5:33:57 AM PST by texas booster (Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team # 36120) Cure Alzheimer's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texas booster

Interesting. Isn’t “submission” a big part of the mkoozlum thing?


6 posted on 01/04/2014 5:39:58 AM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: texas booster

Interesting. Isn’t “submission” a big part of the moozlum thing?


7 posted on 01/04/2014 5:40:08 AM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Welcome to the USSA, comrades.


8 posted on 01/04/2014 5:41:40 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
asked the court to lift the temporary block on birth control

This "lie by abbreviation" is a method increasingly used by Legacy Media, especially in the highly-rarefied hourly news "round-ups" as something that can be explained, blamed on time constraints.

Hourly FoxNews radio is heinous in this regard.

9 posted on 01/04/2014 5:46:20 AM PST by Prospero (Si Deus trucido mihi, ego etiam fides Deus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

10 posted on 01/04/2014 5:48:18 AM PST by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Interesting there is no byline on this story. AFP does, however, have a reporter in DC who used to work for Slate, not an American but instead French. Stereotypical Leftist. Smug little p***k. So now we have barely post-adolescent Frenchmen explaining our country and our government to us. Thanks, AFP.


11 posted on 01/04/2014 5:54:14 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Obama’s administration is one huge attack on non-muslims. Obama’s administration is waging the biggest religious war in history. Obama and his minions hate achieving non-muslims. If you are an achieving non-muslim, you are a target of the Obama administration.


12 posted on 01/04/2014 6:00:35 AM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Not acceptable under any circumstance.


13 posted on 01/04/2014 6:06:47 AM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

NEVER BELIEVE A PROVEN LIAR... EVER... AND THE US GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLLED TODAY BY THE PRINCE OF LIES.


14 posted on 01/04/2014 6:08:26 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texas booster
The US government, in its written response, asked the court to lift the temporary block on birth control, arguing that the provision does not apply to the nuns anyway.

The Little Sisters' lawsuit is "not about the availability or adequacy of a religious accommodation," the Justice Department brief said.

This is terribly worded with the obvious intent of obfuscation.

It also illuminates the role assigned to Justice Sotomayor in this little kabuki theater (see, even my own justice was unclear just how noble this ObamaCare Act was).

Wait and see...

15 posted on 01/04/2014 6:09:37 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (It was the best of governments; it is the worst of governments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia
Why not, he understands perfectly the teaching of Robespierre, le dictateur sanguinaire, being orchestrated by our own bloodthirsty dictator.
16 posted on 01/04/2014 6:15:09 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (It was the best of governments; it is the worst of governments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

I like the picture, but it does have the order mixed up. The first freedom mentioned in the first amendment is religion. So, the first frame should read “religion”.


17 posted on 01/04/2014 6:38:35 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Instead, the nuns group wants to "justify its refusal to sign a self-certification that secures the very religion-based exemption the objector seeks."

If one has religious freedom then one doesn't need the government's imprimatur before that freedom can be exercised.

18 posted on 01/04/2014 6:44:36 AM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Any 'good' lawyer will tell you its not a celestial idea to go into court against a group of nuns called "The Little Sisters of the Poor". Talk about your stacked deck!
19 posted on 01/04/2014 6:55:10 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Obama and his thugs have declared conscientious objection dead. I wonder how many progressives understand that, if any? It appears Obama and Holder are fomenting an armed revolution. No wonder they want to disarm us.


20 posted on 01/04/2014 7:08:28 AM PST by Montana_Sam (Truth lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texas booster
Either the reporter is not making themselves clear, or the DoJ is really despicable.

I'm voting for #2.

21 posted on 01/04/2014 7:27:24 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins

true, but you know that highlighting the order of rights specified in 1A may imply a element of relative importance which does not exist


22 posted on 01/04/2014 7:38:34 AM PST by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley


23 posted on 01/04/2014 7:39:38 AM PST by Iron Munro (Orwell: There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

Actually, the continual inability to get the order right does say something to me.

I believe the Founders made religion the first right mentioned and the first right in the first amendment for a reason. It was the most potentially disruptive and to emphasize that free speech was not more important, it made the case that free religion was the standard and free speech, about religion, was critical.


24 posted on 01/04/2014 8:35:10 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I am familiar with that line of reasoning, and it makes sense to me. My point being that it is in the same manner in which the Bill of Rights is not to be assumed to be enumerated in order of importance.
IOW, while the rights enumerated in 1A share co-dependencies, there is no implication of relative importance. To use your example, without free speech there can be no free exercise of religion and vice versa.


25 posted on 01/04/2014 9:02:24 AM PST by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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