It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Admin Renews Attempt to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Obey HHS Mandate

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I guess the Supreme Court wasn't good enough for the Obama Administration when it came to the birth control mandate and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

The Supreme Court made some kind of decision that apparently says the Little Sisters of the Poor were exempt.

Looks like the Administration is appealing that decision.

Now it seems the Administration is going after the mandatory part anyway.

Hmmm.



The Obama administration has renewed its attempt to force a Catholic religious order, the Little Sisters of the Poor, to comply with the HHS abortion mandate. The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.

The Obama administration announced today it will continue its legal battle against the Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious order of nuns dedicated to serving the neediest elderly in society. This comes despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and another company in their bid to stop the HHS mandate. ....



Keim said today’s developments at a federal appeals court in Denver are the latest stage in the government’s attempt to force the Little Sisters and other charities serving the needy to comply with the HHS Mandate. Although the Supreme Court previously required the Little Sisters to do nothing more than notify the government of their religious objection, the government issued new regulations last month in an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s order. ....


The Little Sisters’ brief concerning the new rule will be filed later this evening. To date, approximately 90% of the courts addressing the contraception mandate—including the Supreme Court in three separate lawsuits—have protected religious ministries.



Obama Admin Renews Attempt to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Obey HHS Mandate


related thread from January....
Supreme Court Stops Obama From Forcing Catholic Nuns to Obey HHS Mandate




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That's cool! Nothing like an administration pissing off the Supremes!

I fail to see how that could make it very far given the recent SCOTUS decision.


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This President is the worst. I can't wait for him to be gone.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Could this be any more misleading? Did you actually read the brief or are you just running with what one of the plaintiff's lawyers said to an anti-abortion site?

PDF here


Plaintiffs may decide that the alternative approach permitted by the interim final rules
satisfies their concerns under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). If, however,
they decide to proceed with these cases, the interim final rules present questions of law that
this Court may resolve in the first instance.

It is crucial that these appeals be resolved now. Because of the injunctions issued in
these cases, the women employed by plaintiffs have been and continue to be denied access
to contraceptive coverage. That result is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s recent
guidance on the accommodations in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)
and Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014). In both Hobby Lobby and Wheaton


edit on 2014-9-9 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

He doesn't seem to care what other branches of the government say.

We need a good old balance of power battle.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Absolutely, we do.

It can not happen too soon. Mr. Obama is setting a disturbing presidence that future Presidents, regardless of party affiliation, will be only too pleased to follow.

The supremes, and Congress need to grow a collective set, and draw a line in concrete.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I'm so confused. Why do nuns need BC? And why do nuns need to pay for drugs they don't need?!



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

(In Schwarzenegger voice)

"Everyone must pay!"

I mean hell, my wife has had a hysterectomy and I am 60.. but we pay for insurance that covers babies.

The Unaffordable Care Act blows.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Women's health is an important topic. This specific situation belittles the issue. I wonder if that's the point.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
If Obama continues on this course, the public will turn on him and the democratic party fast. And this will be something that will be exploited and used during the upcoming elections this year and in 2 years.

The issue here, is that should a religious organization, that is fully non profit be forced to violate one of the main tenants of its faith? The answer should and completely be no. The government should not be even be considering this action. The moment that the force such, it will open the door up to religious organizations to do political stuff.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

Sometimes a duck is just a duck and not an alien wearing a duck suit.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

So is men's health. What's the relevance?

Are you saying that abortion inducing drugs are for health reasons? lol

Sorry, I was young once and that's a load of equine excrement.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Plaintiffs may decide that the alternative approach permitted by the interim final rules
satisfies their concerns under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). If, however,
they decide to proceed with these cases, the interim final rules present questions of law that
this Court may resolve in the first instance.

It is crucial that these appeals be resolved now. Because of the injunctions issued in
these cases, the women employed by plaintiffs have been and continue to be denied access
to contraceptive coverage. That result is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s recent
guidance on the accommodations in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)
and Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014). In both Hobby Lobby and Wheaton


I like how no one else has addressed this.

It seems to me that the above says Little Sisters of the Poor can accept the SCOTUS ruling (it was a victory for them, wasn't it?) or they can not. It appears that they did not accept the ruling. So the administration is going after them again. Further, half of the organization are not nuns...so no, it's not just 'the nuns' that need the birth control. It's the 2000+ who aren't nuns that work for the organization.


edit on 9-9-2014 by links234 because: oops



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
This looks like the case itself.....

Hobby Lobby is mentioned.

In Federal Appeals Court




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
If Obama continues on this course, the public will turn on him and the democratic party fast. And this will be something that will be exploited and used during the upcoming elections this year and in 2 years.

The issue here, is that should a religious organization, that is fully non profit be forced to violate one of the main tenants of its faith? The answer should and completely be no. The government should not be even be considering this action. The moment that the force such, it will open the door up to religious organizations to do political stuff.


Fully non-profit doesn't mean it's fully volunteer. Apparently, there are employees who are entitled to health insurance. I suspect the controversy is over whether the organization gets to choose what the insurance covers and does not cover. If this is what the controversy is about, I agree with the administration. No one is required to get medical treatments they don't want. IF the organization is strictly volunteer and has no employees, there wouldn't be this controversy. These organizations want to function as businesses on the one hand and, on the other, they want to squeal "Religion! Hands Off!" when it suits their purposes.

In case you didn't know, plenty of religious organizations do "political stuff". They should loose tax exempt status for doing it.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Thats not the controversy as the SCOTUS has already acknowledged they do indeed get to choose. Look up Hobby Lobby ruling.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Tangerine

Thats not the controversy as the SCOTUS has already acknowledged they do indeed get to choose. Look up Hobby Lobby ruling.


Then what, exactly, is the controversy in the Little Sisters case? The Hobby Lobby ruling (which was, in my opinion, an appalling ruling) refers to closely held corporations only.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Hobby Lobby was a breath of fresh air. No idea what is going on here.

“Merely offering the Little Sisters a different way to violate their religion does not ease their conscience,” said Keim. “Adding another layer of paperwork is a solution that only a bureaucrat could love.


It appears it's a matter of conscience for them, exactly how it works and why they are upset I don't know. Kind of silly to go after them though.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Tangerine

Hobby Lobby was a breath of fresh air. No idea what is going on here.

“Merely offering the Little Sisters a different way to violate their religion does not ease their conscience,” said Keim. “Adding another layer of paperwork is a solution that only a bureaucrat could love.


It appears it's a matter of conscience for them, exactly how it works and why they are upset I don't know. Kind of silly to go after them though.


What if a business owner decides that s/he doesn't believe in men using viagra or people being treated for HIV or heart transplants? Should that employer be able to decide that their employees don't get health insurance coverage for those things? Do you really want a country in which employers have feudal-like power over their employee's non-working lives? Are you aware that court rulings set precedents?

If this issue is a matter of conscience for the Little Sisters, they should stop functioning like a business and employing people. Of course, that would eliminate their income. When it comes to a choice between conscience and income, guess which one goes out the window?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
I am not sure but the disagreement might be how they handle things after the exemption is given.
I think they have it so that if these companies have a problem with the mandate the employees can still get coverage but the company still has to take action to put this in effect. Really it was set up for non-profit charities who had a problem but the hobby lobby decision kind of suggested that the companies could be included also. But then some of the charities had a problem with having to take any action and I think the court ruled in favor of them so I have no idea.

Meanwhile we the people (the ones who the bill of rights originally gave the rights to) still have to buy insurance for our minor children that includes birth control so I don't see how this is protecting religious rights anyways..
It's just allowing some businesses to stand up and yell "See how religious we are!!! Come buy from us oh all ye christians!!!"



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join