Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Rules Against Wyoming Roman Catholic Organizations
K2 Radio.com ^ | 5/13/14 | Tom Morton

Posted on 05/14/2014 10:32:01 AM PDT by marshmallow

U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl wrote Tuesday that the Catholic groups are wrong to believe they are forced to contract with a third-party insurance provider of contraceptive products and services.

“Plaintiffs have the right to be exempted from participating in, providing, or paying for the costs associated with the objectionable contraceptive coverage based on their sincere religious beliefs, but they have no right to prevent a third party (who does not hold those same religious objections) from meeting the ACA’s requirements,” he wrote.

The plaintiffs are the Diocese of Cheyenne, Catholic Charities of Wyoming, St. Joseph’s Children’s Home in Torrington, St. Anthony’s Tri-Parish School in Casper, John Paul II Catholic School in Gillette, and the Wyoming Catholic College in Lander. (The diocese offers its employees a health insurance plan through a self-insurance trust, and the college offers coverage through a self-funded plan provided by the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust.)

Under the ACA, the Catholic Plaintiffs claimed they have four undesirable options, Skavdahl wrote. They could have a health insurance plan to offer contraceptive coverage, submit a “self-certification form” to take advantage of an accommodation that would eliminate a burden on their beliefs, refuse to comply with the ACA and face substantial fines, or cease offering health insurance.

The “self-certification form” was central to this case, Skavdahl wrote.

On May 7, the judge held a motion hearing in which Catholic groups’ attorneys Paul Hickey and David Raimer argued the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 has a provision to not force religious groups to do something against their own teachings and by extension that would include signing the self-certification form.

(Excerpt) Read more at k2radio.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/14/2014 10:32:01 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Hey judge? And where does the federal government get the right to force any of this malarkey on an unwilling citizenry?


2 posted on 05/14/2014 10:37:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

It seems that in the new Obama lead America, all these religious groups just need to quit being so religiousy!!


3 posted on 05/14/2014 10:41:17 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

How come we haven’t seen any Muslim organizations filing lawsuits?


4 posted on 05/14/2014 10:49:03 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

The mistake was going along with empowering the government with Obamacare. Once the government has the power, it will use it.


5 posted on 05/14/2014 11:26:34 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Hillary may have brain damage, but what difference does it make?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Of course this will force the Archdiocese to not provide insurance to employees who will then be forced onto the state exchange.

Another step in the direction of Single Payer.

Barney Frank said so himself!

6 posted on 05/14/2014 11:28:23 AM PDT by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofagun

Replace “Archdiocese” above with “subject Catholic organizations”!


7 posted on 05/14/2014 11:29:40 AM PDT by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Compulsion to contract is illegal, idiot judge.


8 posted on 05/14/2014 12:52:12 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Mass non-compliance. How many of us will they arrest/kill?


9 posted on 05/14/2014 12:53:20 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

You said it well, Jim.


10 posted on 05/14/2014 2:49:43 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Judges can be so stupid that it falls right off the "but interesting" radar. Artie Johnson is not amused...

Whatever in the world could the judge be talking about;

“Plaintiffs have the right to be exempted from participating in, providing, or paying for the costs associated with the objectionable contraceptive coverage based on their sincere religious beliefs, but they have no right to prevent a third party (who does not hold those same religious objections) from meeting the ACA’s requirements,” he wrote.

A woman could go buy her own birth control pills, for not all that much out-of-pocket expense. As far as the government is concerned there is no "law" per se, that a woman could not do so.

Unless someone other than an insurance company pays for "contraceptive coverage", then those paying the insurance company ARE paying for the "contraceptive" coverage, so just WHAT is the judge talking about? What law is the judge here relying upon? What lawyer's "argument" is he relying upon? OR -- is the judge making this up as he goes along, himself arguing one side of the case from behind the bench on one hand, while simultaneously with the other engaging in judicial activism (writing laws)?

What's the real kicker here?

Is it --- that the "government" will be "subsidizing" the contraceptive coverage portions (as if those could be fully set apart from all else -- without being fully set outside bounds of coverage). I mention this last -- for this is NOT all about birth control pills, but who will "pay" for abortions too.

If so -- then that would leave everyone (every taxpayer, anyway) doing the real "paying", not only for contraceptive coverage, but all the rest of the costs associated with administering such aspects, including an insurance company's needed profit margin on the coverage.

And that's before we get to talking about who is going to pay for an abortion.

Perhaps the co-pay amounts required will be high enough to force a woman desiring that procedure to pay for her own?

Yeah, right, if that were to be the case...how long would that be the way things were to be?

I'd give it -- about 2 weeks tops, before yet another "executive order" would come barreling out of the stern-chute of the White Hut, saying that "the government" would pay. Which would have again everyone paying for that which could be against their religion -- by order of the government, enforced by the IRS, no less.

Maybe if we were real, real smart--- we could steer Barry-boy into a situation where that would be the only option, where he would have to tip his hand in overreach of yet another executive order, provided we are all ready for a near-constitutional crises.

We know what the real Democrat Party agenda is on this issue, don't we? On the part of ObamaCare proponents, it is for all to be forced to pay for universally available, abortion-upon-demand.

Would an "executive order" saying the government must pay or subsidize contraceptives and abortions both for those otherwise "covered" by employers who have legitimate religious opposition (to abortion in particular) force the issues more fully into the open, forced to be naked, rude and crude -- where enough of the oodles & gobs of double-talk about it could be made to fall to the wayside enough-- that a majority would have to see and admit to themselves, that what they are pushing for --- is the murder of unborn children in the womb?

Ok, everyone. Brace yourselves. And on the count of three ---everyone grab the "third rail". ???

Zap-kerpow-sizzle. It would electrify the divisions in this nation...but we'd likely lose anyway, about as soon as the first Eric Rudolph wanna-be did his "best" (uhg) turning the whole thing (politically speaking) beyond "electric" to plutonium-grade radioactive.

They (the infamous "they") have not cared much that "they" had that as part of their own bottom-line, accepted for reason of not wishing to [ahem] "force a woman to have a baby".

And now...that "they" wants to make everyone shoulder the costs for the after-the-fact changing (or duplicitous) mind of those who would engage in reproductive activity (sexual intercourse) but want others (all taxpayers) to share in with the monetary costs of a woman's own "choice" or choices.

It sounds like this judge (too, along with Bronco Bama and most all other 'baby-in-the-womb' assassins) should have his backside swatted. The boy is getting out of line -- and needs to explain himself.

A judge cannot just "pronounce" rulings as he would himself desire the world to be. There must be solid foundation outside of his own personal views and opinion for his "judicial" opinion.

11 posted on 05/14/2014 4:37:23 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

I guess he missed that class in law school.


12 posted on 05/15/2014 8:29:08 AM PDT by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

The communists’ plan must move forward.


13 posted on 05/15/2014 8:59:37 AM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
How come we haven’t seen any Muslim organizations filing lawsuits?

They are exempt, from everything...

14 posted on 05/15/2014 6:33:05 PM PDT by Iscool (Ya mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | 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