Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge decides for pope that funding contraception is not a sin
lsn ^ | 10.4.2012 | Johanna Dasteel

Posted on 10/04/2012 7:37:15 PM PDT by Morgana

Last week, a federal district judge in Missouri dismissed a case against the HHS mandate, ruling that forcing Catholics to pay for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs does not violate their faith, because they remain “free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives.”

In her ruling, Judge Carol E. Jackson contended that the mandate does not prohibit a business owner’s religious worship or personal decision not to use contraceptives, echoing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ contention that the new mandate does not “affect an individual woman’s freedom to decide not to use birth control.”

“This Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise,” she wrote.

Judge Jackson’s opinion correlates with the Obama administration’s separation of “freedom of worship” vs. “freedom of religion,” alleging that as long as the owner can go to church, there is no Constitutional violation.

Frank R. O’Brien, who employs 87 people at O’Brien Industrial Holdings in St. Louis, filed the lawsuit out of concern that the federal regulation will force him to either violate his conscience or watch his business wither under the weight of fines the Obama administration promises to levy for his non-compliance.

O’Brien’s is one of more than 30 federal lawsuits against the health care act’s most controversial provision, which requires virtually all employers to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs as part of their insurance plans.

O’Brien’s attorneys are expressing optimism in the face of the court decision, expecting the Court of Appeals to deliver a more favorable ruling for their suit.

Francis J. Manion, senior counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice, told the press the position is so extreme that “it’s a position the government itself doesn’t take.”

The mandate itself provides exemptions for religious institutions, but businesses that are owned and operated by religious people do not fall under that exemption.

Some have questioned, if Judge Jackson is correct and the mandate does not violate anyone’s conscience, why there is a religious exemption at all.

The mandate was promulgated by Sebelius, a Catholic who has been repeatedly under fire for supporting abortion and contraception in contradiction to Church teaching.


TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; abortion; carolejackson; catholic; frankobrien; freedomofreligion; moralabsolutes; obamacare; sebellus
Who died and made her God?
1 posted on 10/04/2012 7:37:22 PM PDT by Morgana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Huge blind spot, which hopefully will get fixed at the appellate level. Would it be any more right if Baptist churches had to fund liquor for their parishoners?


2 posted on 10/04/2012 7:39:55 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew (or is that lou?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Who died and made her God?
________________________

She becomes a god when the Church bows to her will.

So the Church must stand strong.


3 posted on 10/04/2012 7:42:53 PM PDT by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

The Democrat party has declared war on the Catholic Church. As a Catholic I am saddened that apostate Catholics like Sebilius, Biden, Pelosi are leading the charge.


4 posted on 10/04/2012 7:44:41 PM PDT by Lawgvr1955 (You can never have too much cowbell !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

So to be clear:

If YOU pay for something, the fact that you pay for it don’t mean squat.

But if the FEDS pay for something, they OWN YOUR SOUL.

And if you love your dog, you won’t resist.


5 posted on 10/04/2012 7:46:21 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
By that logic I guess knowingly buying alcohol or tobacco for minors is ok, providing weapons to criminals to commit further crimes, etc. that's all ok now too, right? Guess knowingly enabling sin is supposed to be ok?

Hey, that means we can force Muslims to buy bacon now too, and provide BLTs for lunch for their workers right? They get the same screening at airports etc. None of that "modesty" stuff anymore, right judge?

6 posted on 10/04/2012 7:47:23 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Typical fascist rule. Want to practice your religion? Fine, pay this levy. ...


7 posted on 10/04/2012 7:47:40 PM PDT by Snuph ("give me Liberty...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
Some have questioned, if Judge Jackson is correct and the mandate does not violate anyone’s conscience, why there is a religious exemption at all.

For MUSLIMS, of course, you idiot!

8 posted on 10/04/2012 7:48:46 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Absolutely stunning. So then force the Amish to pay into social security, but tell them to refuse the money when they’re eligible.


9 posted on 10/04/2012 7:50:06 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Let’s see in this election what percentage of Catholics and other Christians are practicing Christians or Christians in name only.


10 posted on 10/04/2012 7:53:18 PM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

So this judge would have qualms about being forced to pay someone to kill puppies with a hammer, just as long as she personally didn’t have to swing the hammer.

Got it.

Is murder for hire still illegal, or does the same now apply to that?


11 posted on 10/04/2012 7:55:54 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

We need to get back to my money, my choice and far, far away from all these ridiculous HHS mandates.


12 posted on 10/04/2012 8:03:25 PM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

If they get away with this, it is the end of “choice” in what we do in our lives. We can be ordered by the government to commit murder. Then, in order to be faithful - live w/o state ordered murder of the innocent (old, handicapped or unborn and young) - we will end up in prisons and ghettos.

If we don’t unite and organize to permanently put the satanist statists out of power, we deserve persecution. Putting humanists in power over us and our children is a fatal act of disobedence to God’s law.


13 posted on 10/04/2012 8:09:51 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

The judge is simply using the abortion argument. All tax payers have been funding abortion for decades and all of a sudden they want to stand up for their Constitutional rights. Sorry, you already gave them up long ago.


14 posted on 10/04/2012 8:11:33 PM PDT by Snuph ("give me Liberty...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

they just need to remove her from the bench.

no honor, no morals, no decency, no love of the Constitution they take an oath to.

just a bytch wanting it her way.

blessings, bobo


15 posted on 10/04/2012 8:25:10 PM PDT by bobo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
Clearly it violates their conscience. Unfortunately I kind of see the judges point.

There is a lot of gray area between extremes.

Would we allow an anti-war protestor or an anti-capitol punishment protestor to refuse to pay taxes. No. We wouldn't. Why? Because the majority evidently feels the war is in all of our best interest, and while we are tolerant of conscientious objectors, it doesn't excuse them from the rule of law. And taxes are relatively indirect. They fund the government. The government in turn funds the war.

This is much less indirect than the war example. Unlike taxes, this is equivalent to ordering people to buy the bullets and supply them to soldiers to be used in a war they disagree with. And while there is the option of not providing insurance, it comes with large penalties and seems very unnecessarily discriminatory against those with long held religious beliefs.

I hope the circuit court overturns the ruling. But like abortion this is one of those areas where the people of America needs to rise up and say enough is enough.

16 posted on 10/04/2012 8:30:11 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

What if the Feds order you, the owner of a private business that takes no government money, to pay for something that violates your beliefs, or pay them an exorbitant fine if you refuse?


17 posted on 10/04/2012 8:32:12 PM PDT by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

-——Judge Jackson’s opinion correlates with the Obama administration’s separation of “freedom of worship” vs. “freedom of religion,”———

ridiculous nuance, like something from Alice in Wonderland

another Wellesley nationalist socialist

Judge Jackson’s ethnicity also correlates with Obama. Another communist agitator in power.


18 posted on 10/04/2012 8:40:22 PM PDT by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

The judge is engaging in shallow liberal bumper sticker thinking along the lines of, “AGAINST ABORTION, DON’T HAVE ONE”. Such dumb pagans do not know that it is evil to cooperate in the sins of others.

“If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he[the wicked man] shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death.” -Ezekiel 33:8


19 posted on 10/04/2012 9:12:28 PM PDT by MDLION ("Trust in the Lord with all your heart" -Proverbs 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Dumbest judge ever.

Must have gone to the Barry Obama School of Law.


20 posted on 10/04/2012 10:19:24 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Congrats to Ted Kennedy! He's been sober for two years now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

that may happen under Obama II — but not making Moslems pay for pork meals in schools.....


21 posted on 10/04/2012 11:21:34 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Campion
What if the Feds order you, the owner of a private business that takes no government money, to pay for something that violates your beliefs, or pay them an exorbitant fine if you refuse?

You mean like income tax? : )

btw, I wasn't supporting what fedgov does, I was just describing it - sarcastically.

Sorry if that didn't come across.

22 posted on 10/04/2012 11:43:36 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
We now have a State Religion and the Federal courts decide what is and isn't acceptable in the eyes of God.

Given his belief that the head of the government should be the head of church in each nation, Luther would be extremely happy with this decision. I hope all of those who aren't Catholic are equally as proud of what Luther and his doctrine of Self Alone has wrought.

The people in this country have sold their souls for a pittance. To avoid having to have some degree of self control a few days a month they're more than happy to have the Constitution used for toilet tissue by their "representatives" and those their "representatives" appoint to the bench.

This ceased to be the land of the free when it became the home of the horny rather than home of the brave.

23 posted on 10/05/2012 2:33:02 AM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
In her ruling, Judge Carol E. Jackson contended that the mandate does not prohibit a business owner’s religious worship or personal decision not to use contraceptives . . . “This Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise,” she wrote.

Judge Carol E. Jackson is right . . . if she will also accept the proposition that hiring a hit man (or paying protection money to the mob for "Hit Man Services as needed") is not a sin under Catholic Doctrine, because the person doing the hiring is not directly committing the murder.

24 posted on 10/05/2012 2:39:56 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Looks like people aren’t too happy with her as a judge: http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1334

She seems to have been a lifelong socialist with no religion at all.
http://www.jtbf.org/index.php?src=directory&view=biographies&srctype=detail&refno=85

People with God are people without morality:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/10/judge-carol-e-jackson-overrules-law-and.html

Bad ruling:

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/10/


25 posted on 10/05/2012 4:27:13 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

The judge is simply using the abortion argument. All tax payers have been funding abortion for decades and all of a sudden they want to stand up for their Constitutional rights. Sorry, you already gave them up long ago.


Right, we have gave up our God given rights for what we thought was security years ago so why act like it is just now happening. go vote against big government instead of government handouts.


26 posted on 10/05/2012 5:41:22 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Morgana; All

The judge is wrong. The law recognizes the same idea of moral culpability following the money.


27 posted on 10/05/2012 7:54:37 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Osama's dead... and so is our ambassador - Coulter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

I’m hoping that this next Congress will repeal Obamacare, and thus the mandate, rendering any judicial action irrelevant.


28 posted on 10/05/2012 5:02:18 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson