Skip to comments.OBAMACARE ABORTION MANDATE ON THE ROPES AT SUPREME COURT
Posted on 03/26/2014 11:12:51 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
In one sentence, Justice Anthony Kennedy signaled he may vote to strike down Obamacares so-called abortion mandate, suggesting he may form the crucial swing vote in delivering a body blow to the president's signature legislative achievement.
What kind of a constitutional structure do we have if Congress can give an agency the power to grant or not grant a religious exemption based on what the agency determined? Kennedy asked.
It's a question that cuts to the core of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two consolidated cases over whether the government can force a private business to provide preventive care that includes 24 forms of birth control, four of which can cause an abortion.
The Christian families who own the two companies in these cases believe that life begins at conception. Yet violating the mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) carries an annual penalty of $36,500 per employee. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Alliance Defending Freedom have taken these two cases (out of roughly 100 lawsuits filed against this mandate) all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing the regulation violates both the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the plaintiffs, began, When a federal government agency compelled employers to provide something as religiously sensitive as contraception, it knew that free exercise and RFRA claims would soon follow.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Keep praying. We may get a rare victory for life and liberty this time around.
Yeah. Then Roberts will call abortion a tax
We’re in trouble, it seems. He usually argues opposite what he is inclined to rule.
Yesterday someone here pointed out that Venezuela also has a Supreme Court.
Everyone be aware that any discussion you have about this with a lib will involve the lib conflating the abortion mandate with birth control coverage.
Call them on it if it happens.
Traitor Roberts made that clear. It's his legacy.
Don’t count on it. We have been disappointed every time so far.
If, in fact Sovereign Citizens did not exist under the US Constitution as written, then it could be argued that by their refusing equal treatment under the law and uniform constructionist interpretation of The Constitution, The Supreme Court de facto created them.
Black Elk - ping for your legal opinion on what I have just stated.
How about this argument?
My union has to, by law, allow me to opt out of dues if my religion forbids it.
Why are union dues exempt for religious reasons but forced payment for abortafacients not?
At the end of the day Obama and the entire Democrat Party are going to end up wishing Roberts had struck down this law.
The Left's fear that the Court may rightly rule that the Constitution's guaranteed protection for the rights of conscience and of free exercise of religion is exposing their ignorance of America's founding ideas and principles.
They would do well to familiarize themselves with the foundations of thought from which their freedoms were derived.
A good beginning might begin with a study of who John Adams was, his role in the adoption of our Declaration of Independence, and his beliefs about the qualities which might be most desirable in America's leaders if liberty was to be preserved.
The second President of the U. S., John Adams, a signer of the Constitution, in his First Inaugural's closing paragraph, laid out his understanding of the qualifications for the Office of President.
Philadelphia, March 4, 1797
. . . as something may be expected, the occasion, I hope, will be admitted as an apology if I venture to say that
- if a preference, upon principle, of a free republican government, formed upon long and serious reflection, after a diligent and impartial inquiry after truth;
- if an attachment to the Constitution of the United States, and a conscientious determination to support it until it shall be altered by the judgments and wishes of the people, expressed in the mode prescribed in it;
- if a respectful attention to the constitutions of the individual States and a constant caution and delicacy toward the State governments;
- if an equal and impartial regard to the rights, interest, honor, and happiness of all the States in the Union, without preference or regard to a northern or southern, an eastern or western, position, their various political opinions on unessential points or their personal attachments;
- if a love of virtuous men of all parties and denominations;
- if a love of science and letters and a wish to patronize every rational effort to encourage schools, colleges, universities, academies, and every institution for propagating knowledge, virtue, and religion among all classes of the people, not only for their benign influence on the happiness of life in all its stages and classes, and of society in all its forms, but as the only means of preserving our Constitution from its natural enemies, the spirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and the pestilence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to elective governments;
- if a love of equal laws, of justice, and humanity in the interior administration;
- if an inclination to improve agriculture, commerce, and manufacturers for necessity, convenience, and defense;
- if a spirit of equity and humanity toward the aboriginal nations of America, and a disposition to meliorate their condition by inclining them to be more friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to them;
- if an inflexible determination to maintain peace and inviolable faith with all nations, and that system of neutrality and impartiality among the belligerent powers of Europe which has been adopted by this Government and so solemnly sanctioned by both Houses of Congress and applauded by the legislatures of the States and the public opinion, until it shall be otherwise ordained by Congress;
- if a personal esteem for the French nation, formed in a residence of seven years chiefly among them, and a sincere desire to preserve the friendship which has been so much for the honor and interest of both nations;
- if, while the conscious honor and integrity of the people of America and the internal sentiment of their own power and energies must be preserved, an earnest endeavor to investigate every just cause and remove every colorable pretense of complaint;
- if an intention to pursue by amicable negotiation a reparation for the injuries that have been committed on the commerce of our fellow-citizens by whatever nation, and if success can not be obtained, to lay the facts before the Legislature, that they may consider what further measures the honor and interest of the Government and its constituents demand;
- if a resolution to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world;
- if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources of the American people, on which I have so often hazarded my all and never been deceived;
- if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of the moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people deeply engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by experience and age;
and, with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.
With this great example before me, with the sense and spirit, the faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the same American people pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, I entertain no doubt of its continuance in all its energy, and my mind is prepared without hesitation to lay myself under the most solemn obligations to support it to the utmost of my power.
And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence. - John Adams, First Inaugural
Since private enterprise is part of our inaliabe rights under the USConstitution and USDOIndependence, I sure hope some SCOTUS members still follow the supreme law of USA. However, if this business has incorporated or become a specifially priviledged government entity in numerous other ways, then SCOTUS may quash on those grounds. Private enterprise VS corporate is the issue, IMHO.
And the thing is that Obama can change the law anytime he likes. But if a person’s religious convictions don’t include support for stopping a human life, they’re treated by the MSM as unwilling to let women control their own bodies. Weird.
One can only hope...
My insurance doesn’t pay for elective surgeries. Abortion is an elective procedure. What other elective surgeries to liberals want covered? Boob jobs? Nose jobs?
It’s time these feminists man up and take responsibility for their own behavior.
There is speculation that they want us to pay for gender "reassignment" surgeries.
I truly believe they should pay for the hackings of their own nubbin's.
Juan Roberts is corrupt. No way they rule for HL.
Keeping an eye on this. Thanks for posting article:)
“...a woman’s right to access free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act,”...
What’s next, a woman’s right to Ron Jeremy.
(borrowed from a Freeper)
“birth control” isn’t at issue in this case,
and most of them know it,
but are conflating abortion, abortifacients, and birth control together in order to set up a straw man
If Justice Anthony Kennedy strikes down the idea that some animals are more equal than others, I will be thrilled. It’s a shame we can no longer trust Roberts - ever - after the fiasco with ObamaCare Ruling #1.
How about a woman’s right to a decent cocktail? How about a woman’s right to a fine wine? How about a woman’s right to a lovely evening gown? How about a woman’s right to handsome husband? Would you deny a woman that?
There is speculation that they want us to pay for gender “reassignment” surgeries.
I truly believe they should pay for the hackings of their own nubbin’s.
If they want that type of surgery, I would suggest they be put in a mental institution. I guess insurance should cover the mental institution.
Quisling Roberts just had to remind us that he ruled that this abomination is a tax, didn’t he? Nothing like a stick in the eye to wake one up.
Hmmm. Paying a tax! as Sotomayor and Kagan suggested, in order to exercise ones’ religious beliefs seems a fairly high bar using the criteria for review that this case requires.
Would be nice to abort a few SCOTUS members from their seats of heresy.
It would seem that as long as Obama plays Calvinball and never collects the tax, America can ignore it... right? Trying to follow the “taxing” logic to the end?
I Kringe if it’s left up to Kennedy
More false positive hype...with the Roberts Court, it will come in favor of Obamacare. Hey Brietbart, this is what you said last time.
One must remember, the Supremes are all, by now, NSA’d.
We are in trouble whichever way it goes. If they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, they had better make some very careful decisions so we don’t end up with “religious” exemptions from a host of different things—all ending up in court, or driving the IRS crazy (not a totally bad thing).
“I Kringe if its left up to Kennedy”
As I recall Kennedy was furious with Chief Justice Roberts for changing his vote on Obamacare. I’m more worried about Roberts than Kennedy.
I have no doubt that Kennedy will get his revenge by siding with the pro religion forces. Roberts could regain some judicial integrity if he votes against the administration, but no telling what this guy will do.
I can’t believe that Rush today counted Roberts as one of the four reliable conservative votes on the Supreme Court. Rush is losing it.
How could I forget about Roberts voting for Obamacare.
I stand corrected, you can’t count on Roberts for squat.
SCOTUS needs to forget about precedent, case law and all other such junk “law” and simply examine the constitution and original intent. There is absolutely no way the founders, framers and ratifiers ever intended the central government to do anything even remotely close to ObamaCare. In fact, the constitution was intended to PREVENT this kind of tyranny. Toss the entire unconstitutional mess the hell OUT!!
I agree totally! That would solve this case and all the others, and an army of new ones that are sure to be brought before us. Too bad they can’t do that with this decision, but maybe they can made a decision that is most likely to lead to the end of this despicable law.
More to the point, if they do the right thing (rule in favor of Hobby Lobby), they need to qualify it so our First Amendment is not abused in the future by pseudo-religions. I know they will do that if that is indeed the way the decision goes. Fingers crossed. This is so important.
That or they'll rule against it but somehow find that there's a magical severability clause that everyone missed which will allow then to keep the ACA and only toss pieces of it out as
see we're doing something sound-bytes for the political caste when they need a boost for campaigns/reelection.
At the end of the day I don’t think we will lose any of the four who voted to strike the whole thing down.
I can’t see Kennedy saying the whole law is unconstitutional then upholding a single egregious part of that law.
Roberts is they key. If they have him all the pictures in exchange for the first vote then perhaps he is now free to do what he wants.
Of course that is rank speculation on my part.
I read all the oral arguments, and based on the traditional way of predicting votes I think we win either 5-4 or 6-3.
Breyer’s vote is at least in play.
And Roberts, well his vote is always in play for either side.
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.