Posted on 10/12/2018 4:43:57 PM PDT by Morgana
The Little Sisters of the Poor took their fight to not have to pay for abortions in their health care plan all the way to the Supreme Court and won. So that should be the end of the battle right? Not so much.
Last year, pro-abortion attorneys general in Pennsylvania and several other states filed lawsuits to overturn new religious protections issued by the Trump administration. The new rules protect the nuns and other religious employers from having to pay for drugs that may cause abortions in their employee health care plans.
A federal judge blocked the rule in response to the Pennsylvania lawsuit, but the Little Sisters appealed.
Earlier this year, the Catholic nuns achieved a victory at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals but now they are in another federal appeals court fighting a pro-abortion state attorney general who is desperately trying to force them to pay for abortion drugs.
“The Little Sisters of the Poor will be in federal court next week defending their right to live according to their religious beliefs,” the Becket law firm told LifeNews today.
It added: “In State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor, the State of California is suing to end a 2017 regulation that gives religious nonprofits, including the order of Catholic nuns, legal protection from the HHS mandate. The HHS mandate, center of a seven-year legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court, requires employers to provide services such as the week-after pill in their health care plans. The new regulation is a result of the 2016 Supreme Court decision in Zubik v. Burwell, which told HHS to revise its rules. Yet shortly after the regulation was passed, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued to take away the Little Sisters’ religious exemption, forcing the nuns back to court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear arguments and decide whether the Little Sisters of the Poor can get back to their vital ministry of caring for the elderly poor.”
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
At issue in the lawsuit is newly expanded exemptions to the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act HHS mandate. Under Obama, the mandate required that employers, including non-church religious organizations, cover all forms of contraception, from birth control pills to drugs and devices that may cause abortions at no cost to the employees.
While the Obama administration provided exceptions for huge companies such as Pepsi, Visa and ExxonMobile, it refused to provide religious exceptions for the nuns and other religious employers.
Pro-abortion state attorneys general did challenge the new exemptions issued under the Trump administration in 2017. The new exemptions “provide regulatory relief for religious objectors to Obamacare’s burdensome preventive services mandate, a position supported by the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.”
Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor expressed weariness at the four-year-long legal battles.
“We pray that soon this trying time will be over; that the court will rule as the Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the government doesn’t need us to provide these services to women. As Little Sisters of the Poor, all we want is to follow our calling of serving the elderly poor,” Maguire said in a statement.
States that are suing over the new rule include California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Washington.
The Trump administration says the new rules are motivated by “our desire to bring to a close the more than five years of litigation” over the pro-abortion mandate. These include cases by the Little Sister of the Poor, Hobby Lobby and countless other religious organizations and businesses.
“In State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor, the State of California is suing to end a 2017 regulation that gives religious nonprofits, including the order of Catholic nuns, legal protection from the HHS mandate. The HHS mandate, center of a seven-year legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court, requires employers to provide services such as the week-after pill in their health care plans. The new regulation is a result of the 2016 Supreme Court decision in Zubik v. Burwell, which told HHS to revise its rules. Yet shortly after the regulation was passed, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued to take away the Little Sisters’ religious exemption, forcing the nuns back to court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear arguments and decide whether the Little Sisters of the Poor can get back to their vital ministry of caring for the elderly poor.”
Similarly, the a-hole general of Pennsylvania is trying this.
Leftism is truly a mental disease...
When the SC makes a decision and lower courts and politicians ignore that decision and continue to attack the subject, there should be severe, criminal penalties that put the fear of death into people.
Careful what you wish for. Such a mechanism can be used both ways.
Easy answer to these fascist pigs:
Here’s the equivalency contract: You attack The Little Sisters of the Poor, you attack the Marine 1st Division.
Let’s go out back and settle this.
“Careful what you wish for. Such a mechanism can be used both ways.”
You really blew it with your response. Dogbert41 is talking about a legal, constitutional response to punish rogue politicians and judges.
When you say it “can be used both ways,” you’re talking about an unlawful and illegal attack against the rule of law.
If that happens, then the solution is to arrest and punish the rogue actors, with deadly force if necessary.
Thanks Sarg!
For example, some public officials refused to perform same sex "marriages".
When this case is done, I want to see the same judges and lawyers working to make CAIR and the Nation of Islam increase their pork consumption.
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.