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

Skip to comments.

Judge rules against EWTN in HHS mandate case [Idiot Federal Judge]
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | Thu Jun 19, 2014 - 1:35 pm EST | Ben Johnson

Posted on 06/20/2014 6:57:41 AM PDT by topher

IRONDALE, AL – A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the network founded by Mother Angelica must comply with the HHS mandate, despite its deep-seated religious objections, because the ObamaCare provision does not violate the First Amendment.

"EWTN doesn't have to comply with the mandate. All it has to do is sign a form certifying its opposition to the use of contraceptives and then deliver that form to its third-party administrator."

U.S. District Judge Callie Granade ruled in Mobile that the Obama administration may compel the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) to comply with a provision furnishing female employees with contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs, because the network does not directly supply the service

(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: contraceptives; hhs; obamacare; religiousfreedom
Good Grief! The Judge tells me how to object to it, but then says that they must still provide contraceptives for free.

I wonder where this bozo went to school? Is she a blonde?

1 posted on 06/20/2014 6:57:41 AM PDT by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topher

Bozo-the-clown states they can state their opposition to the HHS mandate, but then must offer the contraceptives for free to employees.


2 posted on 06/20/2014 6:58:39 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Does this fall under the Little Sister’s law suit now before SCOTUS?


3 posted on 06/20/2014 7:00:58 AM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

I am sure that EWTN will appeal. Let’s pray!


4 posted on 06/20/2014 7:02:44 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

A Bush appointee. “Compassionate Conservatism” in action.


5 posted on 06/20/2014 7:07:52 AM PDT by steve8714 (Islam is militant. Atheism is militant. Where is my Catholic Church?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita
SCOTUS has only three more dates in this session before things having to wait until October.

I don't know if there are any dates before the end of this term for SCOTUS to delay this decision. I don't know if EWTN must comply immediately or not with this judge's decision.

6 posted on 06/20/2014 7:08:40 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: topher

The judge is a George Bush nominee. Bush knew how to pick ‘em. (SIGH)


7 posted on 06/20/2014 7:08:51 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Totalitarian Federal judge.


8 posted on 06/20/2014 7:09:46 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

I am not a Catholic, but I am willing to stand with EWTN and Mother Angelica in defying this evil, pagan, marxist mandate.


9 posted on 06/20/2014 7:22:38 AM PDT by left that other site (You shall know the Truth, and The Truth Shall Set You Free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

EWTN will appeal.

I know one thing to be true about this country, as I move on with my day, every day wondering ‘wha?’. The Founding Fathers did not intend fro the judicial system to be at odds with anyone who practices their faith as obediently as does/did Mother Angelica and all the staff at EWTN.

It is the same type of case as the one involving the Little Sisters of the Poor, and a little different in detail as Hobby Lobby.

This judge is unwise.

If the USSC is as unwise when it judges on this, it will be much bigger than the case itself.


10 posted on 06/20/2014 7:28:23 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: left that other site

Evil creeps in. EWTN and obedient Catholics will never comply with interfering with God’s plan for life. Birth control is that. It is, according to the Church teaching, as stated by St. John Paul II, as well as Pope Paul VI in ‘Humnae Vitae’, the root of abortion.

The root.

If the Supreme Court rules against EWTN, it will bring it to a governmental religious persecution situation.


11 posted on 06/20/2014 7:34:19 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: topher

If they appeal, don’t they get an automatic stay?

Worst case scenario: They simply do not obey an evil mandate.


12 posted on 06/20/2014 7:42:59 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Whatever one feels about these issues, the fact remains that Birth Control, Abortion, Sterilization, Homosexual Marriage, etc are AGAINST THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. That alone is Constitutionally enough to absolve Catholic organizations from having to PAY for those things.

It is as crazy as forcing Devout Jews to eat pork and pay for other people’s pork as well.

Or to force a JW to pay for my blood transfusion.

It’s just WRONG.


13 posted on 06/20/2014 7:47:11 AM PDT by left that other site (You shall know the Truth, and The Truth Shall Set You Free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topher

From the EWTN site:

Irondale, AL (EWTN) – “We are extremely disappointed with the decision reached by the court in this case. The opinion issued is clearly inconsistent with the decisions reached in nearly all of the cases decided to date. The fact that the court has dismissed the serious issues of conscience and religious freedom that EWTN has raised is very troubling.

As an organization that was founded by Mother Angelica to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church, we do not believe that contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and voluntary sterilization should be defined as health care. We simply cannot facilitate these immoral practices. We have no other option but to continue our legal challenge of the mandate. We are making an immediate appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.”


14 posted on 06/20/2014 7:47:26 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stanne

If the Supreme Court rules against EWTN, it will bring it to a governmental religious persecution situation.


A question for you and everyone else... Does it ever seem to you like the Government is pushing every button it can possibly can to get someone or anyone to do something ‘rash’ so that they can move us right into the next Civil War? Just looking over the various articles just today shows that a lot of ‘hot button’ issues are being exacerbated recently.


15 posted on 06/20/2014 7:48:41 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

The Catholic Church will not go into any kind of violent action.

Most of the people who call themselves members practice birth control. They’ll take a ruling like this as if it’s no drinks served on the LIRR bar car until the train leaves the station.

“What difference does it make?’ is not just from Hillary.

People will be very wise to look at this case for what it really is, but their moral character and lack of conscience is so devastating, that that is the real problem.

Catholics who do not regularly, or ever, attend confession have a distance from their own conscience and from the teachings of the Church that will cause widespread governmental, unchecked, imperceptible persecution of the Church, and will be recognizable only when it becomes overwhelming- and that will be quite uncomfortable and inconvenient.

But look for your average ‘Catholic’’ to say, ‘eh, what difference does it make?’


16 posted on 06/20/2014 7:55:53 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Thank you for your reasoned reply, unfortunately I agree with you.


17 posted on 06/20/2014 8:01:05 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: topher

sign and the CFPB shuts you down


18 posted on 06/20/2014 8:02:50 AM PDT by molson209 (Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

Which Bush?


19 posted on 06/20/2014 8:53:10 AM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topher

Take it to the Supreme court


20 posted on 06/20/2014 8:59:21 AM PDT by OPS4 (Ops4 God Bless America!Jesus is Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher; narses; Salvation; wagglebee; P-Marlowe; Tax-chick

The government wants Jesus to sign a form so his listeners can be financed to kill their babies.

“Caesar is so busy, poor guy.” says Jesus. “Give me that form. Didn’t I say, ‘Let the little children come unto me....as soon as possible?”

Don’t see how they can possible think this is a religious issue.

/sarc


21 posted on 06/20/2014 8:59:21 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

George W.


22 posted on 06/20/2014 9:18:15 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: topher

Just don’t comply. It works for illegal immigrants. This law is unconstitutional and these lawless judges deserve the pit.


23 posted on 06/20/2014 12:41:56 PM PDT by Maelstorm (America wasn't founded with the battle cry of "Give me Liberty or cut me a government check!".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

Here’s where EWTN is getting it wrong:

“As an organization that was founded by Mother Angelica to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church, we do not believe...”

Their argument against “contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and voluntary sterilization” being characterized as “health care” has to be asserted as a clash between new legislation and pre-existing, Constitutionally protected rights, not predicated on their identity.

They should have asserted plainly, “Our Constitutionally protected practice of religion rejects contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and voluntary sterilization as morally reprehensible. The mandates invoked by the ACA force a conflict between compliance with the ACA, and our Constitutionally protected religious rights, in which conflict The Constitution prevails. We, therefore, stand with The Constitution in regarding the mandates that the ACA seeks to impose as unconstitutional, and in all aspects utterly null and void. We shall at no time — neither now, nor in the future — accept, or comply with, any contravention of The Constitution limiting or infringing upon our full and unmitigated access to all rights therein enumerated.”


24 posted on 06/20/2014 1:47:22 PM PDT by HKMk23 (The Superior Culture will prevail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

You were quoting from a brief EWTN Website statement rather than their official/professional argument from law? What makes you think that their lawyers do not fully and correctly understand the issue and are dealing with it appropriately.


25 posted on 06/20/2014 1:56:02 PM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

Their brief statement doesn’t faithfully recap the substance of their legal argument?

Characterizing their argument one way on a web page, and another way in court doesn’t strike a sour note?


26 posted on 06/20/2014 2:08:26 PM PDT by HKMk23 (The Superior Culture will prevail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

Characterizing their argument one way on a web page, and another way in court doesn’t strike a sour note?

_________________________________

No, not at all. Each are geared to specific audiences and purposes, using the appropriate language register.


27 posted on 06/20/2014 2:15:56 PM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

I get that there should be language differences; one geared to the courtroom, the other to the man-on-the-street. What there should NOT be is differences of substance such that reading the summary and reading the court documents would present the reader with two different arguments. The summary should be a layman’s language synopsis of the seminal argument being made before the court; not substantively variant pablum crafted for easy digestion by the American Idle.

The Constitutional argument that they enjoy protection under the Free Exercise Clause is the strongest appeal to legal authority they have, here. Why assert that argument before the courts, but present something weaker to the public mind? That makes no sense.

That is why I construed their summary as their core argument before the courts; it is why I would not have expected their court case to be centered upon anything different than what they presented in their summary. And what they presented in their summary, seems a weaker argument than the one I presented.

The Free Exercise Clause is strong enough to protect religious people from being drafted into the military, and that during wartime; it is certainly strong enough to protect religious people from being forced to pay for others’ morally debatable — AND, I might add, entirely OPTIONAL — acts. The interest of the State in compelling able-bodied men to serve in combat at an hour of dire national need does not trump the individual’s free exercise of his religious faith. Against the towering stature of that national need, which has been made to bow down before the Free Exercise Clause of The Constitution, how does the State’s argument in this case even begin to register? Does the flea outweigh the pachyderm?

How absurd!

Since a man cannot be compelled to go to war for this nation if acts of war are repugnant to his faith, neither can a man can be compelled to pay for others’ access to health services if the acts proceeding from such access are repugnant to his faith. As The State has seen its claim of compelling interest struck down in the former case, ever so much more must it also be struck down in the latter.

I pray to God that is the argument they are making, but their summary scarcely hints as much.


28 posted on 06/20/2014 5:41:19 PM PDT by HKMk23 (The Superior Culture will prevail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: topher

I think we should tell this federal tyrant in a black robe just where his patronizing edict belongs.

Men like that don’t deserve the respect of countrymen to whom they give no respect and act with no respect.


29 posted on 06/20/2014 7:24:42 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Meanwhile Muslims need not worry about any mandates. “Equal protection” is for those who are more equal than others.


30 posted on 06/20/2014 11:46:34 PM PDT by denydenydeny (Admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt one has for others.-Tocqueville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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