Posted on 07/14/2015 11:03:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Guess which ObamaCare case will be headed to the Supreme Court next? At least, that’s the option open for the Little Sisters of the Poor and their defense team at The Becket Fund for the restoration of a temporary injunction against compliance with the HHS mandate. The 10th Circuit handed the nuns a defeat this morning, vacating the earlier temporary injunction ordered by a lower court:
Moments ago, in a departure from the U.S. Supreme Court’s protection of the Little Sisters of the Poorlast year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Little Sisters must comply with the government’s HHS mandate. This mandate forces religious ministries to violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties …
The Tenth Circuit heard oral argument in this case December of last year, when for the first time since the case began, Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire, Mother Provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor, delivered a public statement on the case (see statement here).
Today the Tenth Circuit ruled that government can force the Little Sisters to either violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties. The court held that participating in the government’s contraception delivery scheme is “as easy as obtaining a parade permit, filing a simple tax for, or registering to vote” and that although the Sisters sincerely believe that participating in the scheme “make[s] them complicit in the overall delivery scheme,” the court “ultimately rejects the merits of this claim,” because the court believes the scheme relieves [the Little Sisters] from complicity.”
The Little Sisters and their attorneys are closely reviewing the court’s decision and will decide soon whether they must seek relief from the Supreme Court.
“We will keep on fighting for the Little Sisters, even if that means having to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Daniel Blomberg, Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
The Court’s order similarly harms Christian Brothers Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, the Catholic ministries through which the Little Sisters obtain their health coverage.
This means that the Little Sisters of the Poor will be forced to comply with the mandate or face ruinous penalties, even while appealing their denial of religious exemption by HHS. The idea that Catholic nuns are somehow required to provide contraception through their insurer to their employees — who had to know that Catholic nuns would be the last group one would ask for contraception — demonstrates just how ridiculous this mandate is.
The decision, which is very lengthy, was unanimous on the issues for the LSP nuns. The sole dissent in part addresses the way this decision broadly addresses the impact on self-insuring non-profits:
Today the Court holds, among other things, that the ACA contraceptive Mandate’s accommodation scheme does not substantially burden religious non-profits that object to facilitating contraceptive or abortifacient coverage because opting out does not cause, authorize, or otherwise facilitate such coverage.1 The Court’s opinion provides perhaps the most thorough explanation of the accommodation scheme’s nuanced mechanics that I have yet read. And for argument’s sake, I follow its holding as to the insured plaintiffs’ and Little Sisters plaintiffs’ RFRA claims.2 But I cannot join the Court’s holding as to the other self-insured plaintiffs’ RFRA claims, as that holding contradicts the Court’s own reasoning and thorough explanation of the accommodation scheme.
In reality, the accommodation scheme forces the self-insured plaintiffs to perform an act that causes their beneficiaries to receive religiously objected-to coverage. The fines the government uses to compel this act thus impose a substantial burden on the selfinsured plaintiffs’ religious exercise. Moreover, less restrictive means exist to achieve the government’s contraceptive coverage goals here. I must therefore dissent in part.
The difference demonstrates a well-known weakness in the LSP case, which is how their insurance was structured. The LSP organization has less direct control over its insurance thanks to its use of a kind of co-op, and that was apparently enough for the 10th Circuit to rule that compliance with the HHS accommodation does not actually facilitate the use of contraceptives. Politically, this case is embarrassing for the Obama administration, but HHS has a somewhat stronger case here than with other religious organizations.
The Becket Fund had success in getting the Supreme Court to order a temporary injunction for LSP under the previous accommodation. It appears that they’ll have to try that path again to keep the nuns on the job providing hospice care as part of their exercise of religious liberty.
Bishop Hare would be tossed out of the Episcopal Church today. Pity his kind have died out.
Thats how I read it.
The argument here is that there IS an opt out for Little Sisters. The government says the opt out is reasonable and accompdates Little Sisters religious beliefs.
But because of some nuance with Little Sister’s insurance coverage, the opt out process is more complicated than just filling out the form that tells HHS to go pound sand. So Little Sisters is claiming the process, which is somewhat unique to them, imposes a substantial burden.
5.56mm
If this horrible ruling stands, either the Sisters will have to provide contraception coverage for all those lay people, or go out of business.
Stupid beyond belief.
Little Sisters seems to have an exceedinging rare, if not completely unique insurance setup.
There’s NO reason for HHS to pursue this. Except out of spite. It’s a classic example of use of lawfare to ensure not that HHS wins, but that those who oppose them, no matter how small and insignificant, lose. It’s abuse of governmental coercive power at it’s finest.
The petitioners before the court can view this as a First Amendment religious freedom issue, but they can, in addition, view this as a basic human liberty issue:
If I don’t want green beans, I shouldn’t be compelled to buy green beans.
If a customer doesn’t want green beans, I shouldn’t be compelled to sell the customer green beans.
The third party of government has no business meddling in the contract negotiations of parties one and two.
I should have put the sarcastic tag. I appreciate that there are more people involved.
My wife works for a Catholic Hospital. She is their media/government relations person. She is always amazed when someone from the media calls for a comment on some Catholic stance on contraception and/or abortion.
At one point she acted stunned for the newbie reporter—asking if the Pope had changed the rules that had been in place for 2,000 years?
These rules are just assinine.
Our country was founded on the idea that:
Natural Law/God given rights protect us from tyrannical Goverment
The left has now flip that that to:
Goverment given rights protect us from tyrannical Natural Law/God...
I’ll add one more thing here to my previous posts.
The Obama Administration is aggressively using “deferred action” to legalize millions of illegall immigrants. And is fighting tooth and nail in the courts (5th Circuit) to adopt the most expansive defintion of deferred action possible.
But it won’t use deferred action here, to spare a small group of geriatric nuns from economic destruction for standing by their beliefs.
whole lot of judges ought be drug behind pick up trucks.
I find THAT amazing, too!
You know, I don’t know.
Someone here posted all of the ‘contraceptives’ that Hobby Lobby DOES provide for their employees.
They just won’t provide ‘The Morning After Pill’ and ‘Plan B’ which was what started the ball rolling.
Ghouls!
IN OTHER WORDS, we know the Hobby Lobby decision was very unpopular with the only people who still matter in this country, so we’re going to whittle it down for a while, and then the Supreme Court will make it go away, just like they did that embarrassing Bowers v. Hardwick decision years ago.
-PJ
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.