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

Skip to comments.

Six days and counting: The HHS Contraception Mandate gets its time in the Supreme Court
Hotair ^ | 03/19/2014 | Dustin Siggins

Posted on 03/19/2014 12:32:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Next week, probably the most egregious regulatory measure under this administration gets its time in the Supreme Court: The HHS abortifacient/contraception/sterilization mandate.

As most people know, the mandate was initiated on January 20, 2012, and sparked an immediate backlash. Many people were bothered morally because of the anti-life components of the mandate, while organizations across the country were disturbed at how it failed to offer an appropriately broad religious exemption from the mandate.

Despite several “compromises,”most of which were largely accounting gimmicks, there have been dozens of lawsuits by non-profit and for-profit organizations. According to the Alliance Defense Freedom (ADF), which represents clients in several of those lawsuits, 54 of 61 rulings have gone against the mandate. One injunction was granted by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama nominee, though the significance of that decision is debatable.

Even former Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) is hopping on board the anti-mandate bandwagon, declaring he was bamboozled by President Obama’s Executive Order allegedly preventing elective abortions under the Affordable Care Act.

Supporters of the mandate like to claim, of course, that the mandate itself gives women freedom, and thus opposing it denies freedom. This ignores how the discussion is not about women negotiating over coverage with employers, but is instead about a government requirement for private organizations and individual citizens to insure what they morally oppose. Others like to claim there is no abortion drug coverage in the mandate, but American Thinker Deputy Editor and Live Action Communications Director Drew Belsky and I nailed that to the wall in a recent fact-check, pointing out that at least one form of “contraception” covered by the mandate — intrauterine devices — unquestionably causes an abortion.

At CPAC, Ed and I chatted about the mandate in an interview I conducted for LifeSiteNews.com (see the full interview at the link or below). He said the threat is more substantial than many realize:

With regards to the mandate, Morrissey says the implications are enormous. “You have to understand that there isn’t a contraception crisis in the United States. The CDC [Centers for Disease Control] has a study that shows 99 percent of women who are sexually active and wanted to avoid pregnancy accessed contraception,” in part because of federal funding.

“It is not up to schools and employers to supply [contraception] for free for their employees. And forcing government into those positions is exactly how we’re going to see religious sensibilities, religious expression, curtailed.”

“It’s about more than just the contraception,” according to Morrissey. “It’s about more than just the religious freedom, even though that’s a really big deal. It’s about the fact that government is forcing us to participate in economic transactions against our will. And that is, I think, a huge problem, in terms of personal liberty – whether it’s personal liberty in terms of speech, in terms of religious expression, freedom of assembly.”

“The HHS mandate is really just one big symptom of what the overall problem is.”

To most Hot Air readers, I’m sure this seems like an open-and-shut case of government overreach, and the Court should join the majority of lower courts in backing religious expression, religious freedom, and economic liberty. However, it was only two years ago the Court backed the individual mandate as a “tax,” which I noted at the time significantly curtailed individual freedom:

First, if the individual mandate is a tax, Americans can now be forced to buy anything….

To me, the Court’s decision essentially supports a complete violation of the free will contract history of America. If someone puts a gun to my head and forces me to sign over all of my assets to him or her, that contract used to be null and void. With the allowance of the federal government to put what I’ll call a “tax gun” to my head and force me to buy insurance from a private entity, free will contracts have essentially been declared null and void, at least for the federal government.

A former co-worker who graduated from Harvard Law last year pointed out this morning that government has coerced private, non-free will actions in the past, such as by implementing minimum wage laws. However, we both agreed that a free will contract of employment has to be entered into before the minimum wage aspect of employment is implemented.

We won’t find out for some time whether the Court stands with the statists or the American people and the Constitution. As long as Roberts doesn’t try to repeat the judicial activism he imposed during the individual mandate decision, though, I suspect the Court will go the right way.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; contraception; contraceptionmandate; deathpanels; hhs; hobbylobby; mandate; obamacare; scotus; zerocare

1 posted on 03/19/2014 12:32:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Win the case (I hope) and then kill it dead since Obamacare does not contain a severability clause.


2 posted on 03/19/2014 12:34:26 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

There used to be a time when I thought Justice Kennedy was the only wildcard with 4 being reliably for the original intent of the constitution and the other 4 reliably liberal.

Now, I’m afraid, there are two wildcards... Roberts being the other.


3 posted on 03/19/2014 12:38:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (question is this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I dread it but I think SCOTUS is in their pocket


4 posted on 03/19/2014 12:38:38 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Liberalism is the new state church. They won the election and we lost, so we're supposed to just get over it, shut up and pay. Our religion takes an inferior position to theirs.

We should be grateful that they let us practice it at all. < / sarcasm >

5 posted on 03/19/2014 12:41:03 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

They have modified this turd, without legislation, numerous times with nary a peep from the loyal opposition (GOPe).

It all needs to be sent back for re-legislation. But it won’t. That would be racist/sexist.


6 posted on 03/19/2014 12:41:50 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I dread it but I think SCOTUS is in their pocket

"You have a nice family there Your Honor. I'd hate to see anything happen to it."

7 posted on 03/19/2014 12:44:17 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
Win the case (I hope) and then kill it dead since Obamacare does not contain a severability clause.

No, sorry. The contraception mandate is not in the legislation. So it is not a matter of the legislation being found unconstitutional.

This is about a regulation. Regulations can be changed.

8 posted on 03/19/2014 12:48:39 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Will Elena Kagan be able to participate? After all, she WAS solicitor general while a lot of similar turmoil was ongoing.


9 posted on 03/19/2014 12:49:19 PM PDT by Rembrandt (Part of the 51% who pay Federal taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And will they need, what?, 2 years to come to an opinion?


10 posted on 03/19/2014 12:49:47 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

RE: And will they need, what?, 2 years to come to an opinion?

The decision on the individual mandate didn’t take that long. If I remember correctly, just a few days after oral arguments.


11 posted on 03/19/2014 12:51:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (question is this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I dread it but I think SCOTUS is in their pocket

Both Roberts and Kennedy have some serious dirt that works as good leverage for the Marxists.

12 posted on 03/19/2014 12:51:36 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t think these things are ever decided in a few days. Months at the shortest.


13 posted on 03/19/2014 12:52:32 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

Obama thinks he can change anything he wants with the stroke of a pen. Which is one of the most annoying things about him. I stand corrected.


14 posted on 03/19/2014 1:01:15 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fwdude; SeekAndFind

Most decisions are announced in May and June (July if needed), corresponding with the end of the SCOTUS term.


15 posted on 03/19/2014 1:05:45 PM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Only Scalia and Thomas believe in the Constitution of limited and enumerated powers anymore. The rest are adherents of the unhindered and unencumbered administrative state that does what it likes when it likes.

And they will prove it again here.

16 posted on 03/19/2014 1:16:23 PM PDT by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Question! What is the serious dirt you have on Roberts and Kennedy?


17 posted on 03/19/2014 1:39:50 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mojito

RE: Only Scalia and Thomas believe in the Constitution of limited and enumerated powers anymore.

What about Sam Alito?


18 posted on 03/19/2014 2:34:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (question is this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

Well, on Roberts, rumor has it that his adopted child is not properly a citizen, and is subject to deportation.

Kennedy is just a closet homosexual.


19 posted on 03/19/2014 2:36:36 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Don’t worry, Chief Justice Roberts will figure out some way to call the mandate a “tax” and thus “constitutional”.


20 posted on 03/19/2014 3:07:50 PM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Audentis Fortuna Iuvat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Alito is a reliably conservative justice, but I'm not so sure that he's an originalist like Scalia and Thomas are.

This is nit-picking, of course. But even with Alito, it's 3 to 6, and I don't much like those odds.

21 posted on 03/19/2014 3:17:07 PM PDT by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

There is a published story about Robert’s children including his visit to the Bank of the Vatican on Malta with a briefcase. I have it in files. I don’t recall any info about Kennedy being a closet homo and would need some factual info to accept such.


22 posted on 03/19/2014 4:55:32 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

I was wrong about Kennedy, he isn’t a closet homosexual, he is an “out-and-proud” homosexualist.


23 posted on 03/20/2014 7:23:55 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

No, I think they are being blackmailed by the administration. If they are spying on congress...well why not the court?

Bullies, hostage takers, threats, and false-flag operations, character assassinations...


24 posted on 03/20/2014 7:28:18 AM PDT by EBH (And the head wound was healed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EBH
No, I think they are being blackmailed by the administration. If they are spying on congress...well why not the court?

Bullies, hostage takers, threats, and false-flag operations, character assassinations...

What would be interesting is if the court worked in an implicit admission that the domestic spying is going on, basically opening up the door to flat out saying we're being blackmailed.

25 posted on 03/21/2014 11:31:34 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Only Scalia and Thomas believe in the Constitution of limited and enumerated powers anymore.

Go home mojito, you're drunk — anyone who supports the War on Drugs (Scalia) is not a Constitutionalist.
As Thomas said in the first paragraph of his dissent of Raich:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

26 posted on 03/21/2014 11:35:36 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Exclusive: Democratic senators to file amicus brief in Hobby Lobby birth control case
Yahoo! News | 1/28/2014 | Liz Goodwin
Posted on 1/28/2014 5:47:41 AM by markomalley
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3116511/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/hobbylobby/index


27 posted on 03/21/2014 4:47:07 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | 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