Skip to comments.Supreme Court denies injunction to prevent contraception mandate (Round one to Obama)
Posted on 12/27/2012 6:42:57 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Round one to Obama, largely because the justice assigned to hear the arguments for an injunction against the contraception mandate going into effect was Sotomayer. This doesn't mean that the government can't be sued on First Amendment grounds, just that Sotomayer saw no compelling reason to prevent the law's implementation.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to block the Obama administration's contraception mandate from taking effect.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected a request for an emergency injunction that would have shielded employers from the mandate.
The request was filed by Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain. The company's Catholic owners say the contraception mandate violates their religious freedom. Hobby Lobby might eventually win on that point, Sotomayor said, but the company didn't meet the standard for an injunction blocking the mandate from taking effect. The administration's policy requires most employers to include contraception in their employees' healthcare policies, without charging a co-pay or deductible.
Churches and houses of worship are exempt, and religious affiliated institutions such as Catholic hospitals don't have to cover contraception directly. (Their insurance companies cover the cost of making it available at no cost to the employee.)
But some Catholic employers say they should be able to opt out of the mandate simply because it violates their personal faith, no matter what type of business they run. Hobby Lobby had asked the Supreme Court for an emergency injunction preventing the contraception mandate from taking effect as scheduled on Jan. 1. Lower courts have split on narrow requests for case-by-case exceptions, so Hobby Lobby said the court should block the mandate and immediately hear arguments about whether the policy is constitutional.
Although the court declined to block the contraception policy from taking effect, Hobby Lobby can still pursue its First Amendment arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
this means it will see a courtroom sooner doesn’t it?
i’d rather that happened and not a delay.
If Muslims are exempt for religious grounds, then Catholics should be also. Where is ‘equal protection’?
The (un)wise latina?
Catholics voted for Obama 52 to 48. Therefore, a slim majority of Catholics WANT contraceptives for free.
RE: If Muslims are exempt for religious grounds
Muslims are not exempt from Obamacare.
This wasn’t the Supreme Court, it was one Justice - Soda-Jerk.
I’m Catholic and I have to tell you have to be anti-Christian of any kind to vote Democrat.
“Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Goods”! Obama Phone, Welfare, Disability, Government employment, EBT, Section 8, all kinds of support and endless OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.
And as President Johnson said, give the N-words welfare and they will vote for us for 200 years.
Many Catholics are poor, especially those from Mexico these days and they vote to get paid, their soul is paid for by welfare, same for many other Catholics.
It is a sad state of affairs that shame and self reliance has been so stripped from the American people and culture. In many respects the America of before 1970 is dead. So many people have been brainwashed through the teacher’s union, the main stream television, movies by all the leftist writers, programmers and talent that they are throughly brainwashed into European styled socialism as being normal.
America has gone from a makers mentality to a takers mentality and like all good communist we will IMO starve and see lots of future tyranny from our government as they grow and take control as best they can of all life in America.
More people are indoctrinated into big government thinking today than there are older people who remember the old functioning America. Once all the ones remembering how it should be done are gone, how will it EVER come back?
RIP USA, Rome went down also, lesson not learned.
What skewed the final numbers is the so called hispanic "Catholic" voter, Catholic In Name Only, in it for the free stuff.
So now, I must leave my rights at the door when I go out to make a living? Absurd!
But there is a huge difference. Romney at least loves this country - obama - not. Romney wasn’t in favor of infanticide that I know. Romney didn’t hobnob nor keep company with communist/marxist people or surround himself with them.
How much difference do these low-information voters need?
I see this lie is still subtly being promulgated by the MSM. We must be vigilant against it! It's always a war of attrition with the MSM; every statement they make must be taken with a grain of salt. "Trust, but verify", as a great man once said.
Again, for the record, it's not just a matter of "violating personal beliefs" (as if that shouldn't be reason enough anyway).
The reason why Catholic institutions are fighting this mandate is because most are self insured. So it's a direct falsehood to claim "religious institutions are exempt" in this instance, because they fund their own insurance. So to "concede" (as the administration brazenly claims) that religious institutions aren't paying for contraception "directly, their insurance companies do" is directly and purposely giving false information about the situation.
Since the institutions in question use their own money to pay for medical needs, if they are forced to pay for contraception (and abortion), even if "through their insurance company" they'd still be supporting such directly, since again they are their own "insurance company", in most cases. Shame on the media, again, for what I can only say in the most charitable way, they at LEAST get wrong "unintentionally", but still repeat the error.
I will assume the latter in this instance, not only because its the most charitable assumption, but because this isn't the "MSM". Clearly though, someone at The American Thinker hasn't checked all their facts before publishing this story, and rather just assumed it was true Catholic institutions, such as hospitals, have third party insurance. Repeating this falsehood only HELPS the evil administration, American Thinker! Get your facts straight!
factcheck.org says no.
Under a strict Koranic interpretation it can be said that insurance is gambling, and thus haraam.
One thing is clear, however, and that is the stance of the Catholic Church on contraception and especially abortifacients like the 'morning after pill' (which are being lumped in with other contraceptive methods).
Any devout Catholic is placed in the position of of being required to pay for something in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.
“White Catholics voted 60/40 for Romney. His problem with conservative Catholics wasn’t that he was a Mormon...”
That may (or may not) be true insofar as white Catholics are concerned.
However, I sense that it was indeed a problem with white (observant) Protestants, and even moreso with Fundamentalists. The “Mormon factor” probably cost him a considerable number of votes with these groups.
I’m Catholic and live in the South, and I think the Mormon thing cost him a lot of both catholic and evangelical votes. I voted kfor him, but I lwasn’t sure he’d be much better for Catholics than Obama, except possibly less effective .
I believe the owners of Hobby Lobby are Evangelical Protestants, not Catholics.
Anyone who thinks SCOTUS is on our side is fooling themselves
Actually some high information voters remember that Romney signed Romney care, shoved homosexual marriage up MA butt, signed an unconstitutional web and cozier up to planned parenthood. We held our noses and voted for him but it hurt.
See post # 21. Also that very well could have been big.
I know alot of Republicans who did not vote for Romney. I do not know one who did not vote for him because he is Mormon.
One can no longer support this administation and call themselves Christian. The Republicans seem on the brink of going over the Devil’s abbyss themselves.
Some of your information isn’t factually correct. I do know that he was exceedingly proud of Romneycare - that alone was a huge turnoff, however, the alternative was obama. I know Romney wasn’t a conservative and didn’t want anything to do with them - I didn’t want him for our nominee, but we were left without another good choice this election cycle. Sure,some thought Newt was it - hah! He, too, was and is a flip-flopper. Santorum, Bachmann and Cain were the only true conservatives running and we see how that turned out.
I did some research on Romney and the homosexual marriage law and he did NOT shove it up the butts of the people of MA - Do your own homework on this matter - he could have not allowed it to go into effect, but chose not to. So, in essence,he just decided to let it stand. From what I’ve been reading - he wasn’t that great of a governor and probably would have been a lackluster president too. We’ll never know that because we’re stuck with a marxist for the next 4 years. Yay/s
Conservatives must wrest control from the moderates or start our own party as of last week or the dems will have control for the rest of our lives.
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.