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

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court Throws Out Lower Court Decision On Obamacare Contraception Rules
CNBC ^ | March 9, 2015 | CNBC

Posted on 03/09/2015 6:38:15 AM PDT by mn-bush-man

Headline Only at this point


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: abortion; contraception; deathpanels; notredame; obamacare; scotus; supremecourt; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
To: All

(Bloomberg) — The U.S. Supreme Court told a lower court to reconsider whether the University of Notre Dame must comply with Obama administration regulations that aim to ensure contraceptive coverage for employees and students.

The order gives the Catholic university a new chance to argue that it is being improperly forced to violate its religious beliefs by facilitating what it considers to be abortion. A federal appeals court said Notre Dame had to comply with the regulations, which implement the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

The regulations let Notre Dame and other objecting employers opt out of the requirement to cover birth control by notifying the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the rules, the government then arranges with the insurer or health-plan administrator to provide contraceptive coverage.


21 posted on 03/09/2015 6:53:55 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mn-bush-man; All
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out an appeals court decision that went against the University of Notre Dame over its religious objection to the Obamacare health law's contraception requirement.

The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in favor of the Obama administration in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed closely held corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.

From what I see here. The 7th tried to deny Notre Dame a religious exemption to the Obamacare Mandate. SCOTUS slapped the 7th mentioning their prior ruling on this.

22 posted on 03/09/2015 6:57:33 AM PDT by CptnObvious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mn-bush-man

btt


23 posted on 03/09/2015 7:04:45 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CptnObvious

My problem with that is “why slap them and tell them to reconsider?” Why not just vacate the 7th’s ruling altogether on the side of Notre Dame?


24 posted on 03/09/2015 7:04:48 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mn-bush-man

Obamacare plays a lot of stupid little games with forcing various players to do things that give an appearance of one thing, while actually doing another.

In this case religious organizations had to fill out and submit an “exemption” form that seemingly freed them from the contraception requirements, which ended up triggering their insurance companies to provide the coverage anyways, just from a different pot of money.

I see this as a VERY good ruling, in that SCOTUS is saying “we see what you’re really doing here, you aren’t fooling us” and telling the lower court to resolve the situation by removing the petty gamesmanship.

It portends, I think, good things for another Obamacare case, where the game being played was that of trying to force states to set up exchanges by using the carrot/stick of Federal subsidies for doing so.


25 posted on 03/09/2015 7:05:30 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mn-bush-man

Good news!


26 posted on 03/09/2015 7:05:38 AM PDT by sickoflibs (King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

The reconsideration is actually the neatest part of this ruling. What SCOTUS is saying, in a decidedly school marmish tone is: “You were wrong. Now show us you know you were wrong. In your own words.”


27 posted on 03/09/2015 7:12:12 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mn-bush-man
Right on - this is a great ruling in that the Court is still willing to recognize religious objections and extend protections to them..

While evidently affirming that the fedgov does have the power to compel individuals to purchase a product that it says we must have. Excuse me if I am not dancing in the streets. These religious carve outs are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

28 posted on 03/09/2015 7:14:33 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

My thought is you can’t school liberal minded zealots in anything. You beat them down, stomp them and cut off all avenues of petty response. In my opinion, it was a mistake.


29 posted on 03/09/2015 7:16:46 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“The regulations let Notre Dame and other objecting employers opt out of the requirement to cover birth control by notifying the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the rules, the government then arranges with the insurer or health-plan administrator to provide contraceptive coverage.”

I think one could argue that the mere act of having to *have to* notify the DoH is just a bandaid without adhesive and is done with the intent of Government Oversight on religious convictions and the eventual assumption of bureaucratic oversight.


30 posted on 03/09/2015 7:19:44 AM PDT by Usagi_yo (White privilege? No. White Liberal Privilege? Yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
The reconsideration is actually the neatest part of this ruling. What SCOTUS is saying, in a decidedly school marmish tone is: “You were wrong. Now show us you know you were wrong. In your own words.”

Ha!

That's largely true, but I think a slightly more charitable way of putting it is, "um... guys... you totally overlooked our recent decision on this matter. Now, if you can manage to address that and still reach the same finding, we'd love to read it as we we enjoy a good laugh."

31 posted on 03/09/2015 7:22:25 AM PDT by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
My problem with that is “why slap them and tell them to reconsider?” Why not just vacate the 7th’s ruling altogether on the side of Notre Dame?

Then the Supreme Court would be slapping flies everywhere. No, the court effectively said 'Any court who tries this we will be reminded of our ruling in this way'.

32 posted on 03/09/2015 7:23:05 AM PDT by CptnObvious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CptnObvious

If you say so.....I am a plain person unschooled in the ways of nuance, I guess.


33 posted on 03/09/2015 7:24:46 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: don-o
While evidently affirming that the fedgov does have the power to compel individuals to purchase a product that it says we must have. Excuse me if I am not dancing in the streets. These religious carve outs are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

That wasn't the question before the court. Those cases are still pending. This case is about religious freedom. I'll take glimmers of hope where I can find them.

34 posted on 03/09/2015 7:26:09 AM PDT by mn-bush-man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CptnObvious

Yeah. I see this as good news. The SC is beginning to dismantle obammycare. They’ll rule against the White House on the exchanges too


35 posted on 03/09/2015 7:29:28 AM PDT by kjam22 (my music video "If My People" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b20RjILy4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

This appears to be the one Obama and company manufactured via a friendly judge so they could ignore the Hobby Lobby ruling.


36 posted on 03/09/2015 7:35:29 AM PDT by Ingtar (Mourning for Freedom. I knew her well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
Yeah. I see this as good news. The SC is beginning to dismantle obammycare

None too soon. I had a discussion with the ATP gnome who flies for a major, they have been briefed that they will be in Cadillac Tax territory in 2 years and the hand writing is on the wall the bennies may go bye-bye. Said gnome has a Canadian friend working in the States considering going back to work in Canadia because he feels the healthcare their is better now than here..

What mess the lear deader has made.......

37 posted on 03/09/2015 7:39:01 AM PDT by taildragger (It's Cruz, Pence, or Walker. Anything else is a Yugo with Racing Stripes....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mn-bush-man

Understood. Just dreaming that SCOTUS might have a “Wait. What?” moment and take a lesson from their own Dred Scott decision and take the first opportunity to correct their bad decision.


38 posted on 03/09/2015 7:41:31 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

Agree. Hey taildragger, I flew a taildragger last summer. Check out pics on my profile. Later


39 posted on 03/09/2015 7:43:18 AM PDT by kjam22 (my music video "If My People" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b20RjILy4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

In school, how do you best deal with a disobedient, recalcitrant child? Tell just him that he was wrong and fix the problem for him ... or make him stay after school writing “I won’t disregard SCOTUS rulings” three hundred times on the chalkboard?

IMHO what SCOTUS did here was a lot more humiliating to the 7th Circuit than if they’d just overturned the ruling.


40 posted on 03/09/2015 7:44:44 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

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