On Thursday, the Obama administration filed its first legal response to Belmont Abbey College’s lawsuit challenging the controversial contraception mandate. This was its first opportunity to explain to the court and the country why the mandate is not illegal and unconstitutional.
So what did the administration say? Not that the mandate is legal; not that the mandate is constitutional. Instead, it asked the court to duck the key issues because the administration has “indicated that they will propose and finalize changes to the regulations” at some unspecified date in the future.
“Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Belmont Abbey College. “Its only hope is to ask the court to look the other way based on an empty promise to possibly change the rules in the future.”
The administration’s legal filing relies on an announcement by President Obama at a February 10 press conference, in which he stated that the rules may be changed in the future. But that announcement is not legally binding and does nothing to change the law on the books, which is already harming religious organizations like Belmont Abbey College.
“Promises, promises. The Administration is taking the remarkable position that announcing future plans at a press conference means the courts should ignore what the law on the books actually says,” added Smith. “Since when does ‘Trust me, I’m from the government’ suspend the laws of the land?”
President Obama’s February 10 “accommodation” is coming under increasing fire on numerous fronts. A diverse coalition of over 300 scholars and religious leaders have called the maneuver “unacceptable,” because it still forces many religious organizations to violate their core religious beliefs. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has also denounced it. And in today’s Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer points out that the supposed “solution”—forcing insurance companies to provide contraception for free—is an unprecedented “assault on free enterprise,” because it would allow the government, without any statutory authority, to force private companies to hand out goods and services for free.
becketfund.org/obama-administration-responds-to-contraception-mandate-lawsuit-%E2%80%9Cplease-look-the-other-way%E2%80%9D/“Religious organizations are rightly skeptical that the government will fix the flagrant violation of religious liberty by commandeering the insurance industry,” said Smith. “If this is the best the administration can do to defend its mandate, it won’t last long.”
Yeah, he’s mine (slaps forehead).Dem. congressman lectures bishop, rabbi, Christian leaders on HHS mandate
lifesitenews.com/news/democratic-congressman-accuses-religious-leaders-of-trampling-on-freedom
I hope the court does not trust that.“So what did the administration say? Not that the mandate is legal; not that the mandate is constitutional. Instead, it asked the court to duck the key issues because the administration has “indicated that they will propose and finalize changes to the regulations” at some unspecified date in the future.”
Ridiculous. The Administration says “trust us. this may be unconstitutional at the moment, but we’re going to work on it.” !!
_Abyssinia;8973601**Sen. Lee: ‘Heavens said:cnsnews.com/news/article/sen-lee-heavens-no-constitution-doesn-t-give-gov-t-authority-force-companies-provide
Maybe Obama should be arrested for contempt and put in prison.
Yes, but we also need to get rid of those state mandates.Yes, but my point was that I don’t trust the Federal government to get this right. It overreached on the mandate. I would like the federal government to get out of mandating such things entirely. The entire health care law gives too much power to the central government.
State mandates can be fought at the state level. And free exercise of religion also applies at the state level.Yes, but we also need to get rid of those state mandates.
I don’t want this to be a debate. We are on the same side here. And yes, they can be fought at a state level, but so far those mandates are on the books. Our Bishops have fought (and by that, I mean the Bishops of the state I live in; I have no idea about the other states) and so far have lost. My concern is that when all of this is fought (and hopefully won) on the federal level, that will be the end of the battle…and the states who have the mandate will continue it, and other states will continue to add it. If the people who want this lose on the Federal level, they will just keep working to make it law in all 50 states.State mandates can be fought at the state level. And free exercise of religion also applies at the state level.
You are right, we are on the same side here. I do not want state mandates that force morally unacceptable coverage. And such state mandates ought to be overturned. I wouldn’t mind a congressional statue that protected free exercise of religion nationwide. (Although it should already be protected by the 1st amendment.) It’s just that, as we have seen, what the federal government can overturn, it can also impose. I’d like a general return to subsidiarity.I don’t want this to be a debate. We are on the same side here. And yes, they can be fought at a state level, but so far those mandates are on the books. Our Bishops have fought (and by that, I mean the Bishops of the state I live in; I have no idea about the other states) and so far have lost. My concern is that when all of this is fought (and hopefully won) on the federal level, that will be the end of the battle…and the states who have the mandate will continue it, and other states will add it.
Exactly! I have trouble understanding people who don’t see that.You are right, we are on the same side here. I do not want state mandates that force morally unacceptable coverage. And such state mandates ought to be overturned. I wouldn’t mind a congressional statue that protected free exercise of religion nationwide. (Although it should already be protected by the 1st amendment.) It’s just that, as we have seen, what the federal government can overturn, it can also impose. I’d like a general return to subsidiarity.
President Obama’s attorneys asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the contraception mandate, but did not defend the mandate’s constitutionality, instead arguing that the plaintiffs have sued too soon given that Obama has promised to change the rule to “accomodate” religious concerns.
to the Washington, D.C. District Court. DOJ also argued that the contraception mandate does not pose any “imminent injury” to religious organizations, which have a year to comply.“Plaintiff’s challenge to the preventive services coverage regulations is not fit for judicial review because defendants [Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] have indicated that they will propose and finalize changes to the regulations that are intended to accomodate plaintiff’s religious objections to providing contraception coverage,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote
Bishop Lori responded, “Catholic Health Association does not speak for the church as a whole. Catholic bishops speak for the Church as a whole.”
CHA, the bishop said, “is a lobbying group. It is a trade association. It is not the Church, as such…Catholic Charities is in the same position.”
lifesitenews.com/news/sr.-keehans-endorsement-becomes-a-partisan-talking-point-during-congression“I don’t know much about Catholic United except it doesn’t have any particular standing in the Church,” he said.
Sadly, it is almost certainly going to be a 5-4 decision. There are at least four SC justices who are quite likely give it their blessing. I won’t bet on where the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy will land, but I’d be willing to bet on that score.I am hardly a lawyer let along a Constitutional one, but I cannot see a way that Obamacare passes legal challenge in either one of those situations, let alone all three.
Hi Jason. Several others are also being contested.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-overreach–obamacare-vs-the-constitution/2012/02/16/gIQAmupcIR_story.html
Charles Krauthammer makes some great points in this article. He points out that there are three main threats to the Constitution that are currently known, in relation to Obamacare.
I am hardly a lawyer let along a Constitutional one, but I cannot see a way that Obamacare passes legal challenge in either one of those situations, let alone all three.
- The widely discussed threat to religious liberty by forcing persons of faith to violate basic tenants of their religion upon mandate of the state.
- Forcing American citizens to purchase something through unjustified use of the commerce clause.
- Forcing private business to provide a service which they do not wish to provide and even going so far as telling them that the service must be given away for free.
We need to pray that our judges are given wisdom by the Holy Spirit and side on the part of justice and liberty.
Peace,
Depends on the argument, Bubba. I do think that Kagan should be recused. She’s too close to this.Sadly, it is almost certainly going to be a 5-4 decision. There are at least four SC justices who are quite likely give it their blessing. I won’t bet on where the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy will land, but I’d be willing to bet on that score.
I agree but it’s not going to happen.Depends on the argument, Bubba. I do think that Kagan should be recused. She’s too close to this.