Posted on 03/11/2013 1:22:44 PM PDT by marshmallow
A Pennsylvania federal district court on Wednesday handed down a decision in a case challenging the contraceptive coverage mandate promulgated under the Affordable Care Act. Unlike other cases decided so far, this one combined a challenge by a non-profit college and two for-profit businesses that do not appear to have any relation to the college. The 69-page opinion reached different results as to the different challengers. In Geneva College v. Sebelius, (WD PA, March 6, 2013), the court held that while the non-profit, Reformed Presbyterian Church-sponsored Geneva College had standing to challenge the mandate, its lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of ripeness. Under Feb. 13 proposed rules, Geneva may be exempted from compliance.
The court, however, handed down a more complex ruling as to the challenges by the for-profit businesses, refusing to dismiss their RFRA, free exercise and Administrative Procedure Act claims. It held that one of the companies, a closely-held corporation in the lumber business, has standing to assert its Catholic owners' free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment and RFRA. However the court held that the other business, a sole proprietorship, cannot assert a claim since it is not a separate entity. Instead its owner, who is also a plaintiff in the case, may assert the business' rights in his own name.
(Excerpt) Read more at religionclause.blogspot.com ...
“Ripeness”? Is that a legal term?
Do they mean the law doesn’t stink enough yet?
Judicial hypocrisy!
In Citizens United the Supreme Court held that laws restricting corporations from ‘electioneering’ was a violation of the First Amendment.
Amend I - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
If restrictions on a corporation’s ‘electioneering’ activities are an abridgement of freedom of speech, then surely the contraceptive coverage mandate violates the “free exercise” clause.
The stench from the bench is ripe.
“Ripeness”? Is that a legal term?
Yes. It has to do with standing, and means that no one has sufficiently been harmed by the mandate yet to have standing to sue (since Obamacare has not yet been fully implemented).
Obama of course knew when it passed that these claims would not have “ripeness” until after Obamacare had put all of the private sector alternatives out of business.
Put that on a t-shirt. I'd buy it!
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.