Judge decides for pope that funding contraception is not a sin

lsn ^ | 10.4.2012 | Johanna Dasteel

[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.

[Cronos]

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

[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?

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.

[Rashputin]

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.

[Pollster1]

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.

[jacknhoo]

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/

[ravenwolf]

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.

[newzjunkey]

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

[SuziQ]

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