Court rules against Texas diocese in HHS mandate case

[_Abyssinia]

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that East Texas Baptist University, Westminster Theological Seminary, the Catholic Diocese of Beaumont, and Catholic Charities of Southeast Texas are not exempt from cooperation with the HHS mandate.

“We join our sister circuits in concluding that the plaintiffs have not shown a substantial burden on their religious exercise,” the court ruled.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25337

 

[_Abyssinia]

Check out this from National Review regarding the ruling. Here is an excerpt:

It cannot be denied that the “accommodation” requires employers to contract covertly for the provision of the very services to which they may object. Yet that is just what Judge Smith does deny. Under HHS regulations, an objecting religious organization either fills out a standard EBSA Form 700 and sends it to HHS and its health insurance company, or notifies HHS by informal means, so long as it identifies all the particulars HHS needs in order to contact the insurance company itself. The result? The organization’s employees receive the covered services. If this is not “facilitating,” in a morally complicit fashion, the exact result to which the organizations object, then the word “facilitating” has no meaning.

Read more at: nationalreview.com/bench-memos/420202/fifth-circuit-taken-hhs-peek-boo-matthew-j-franck

 

[Joe_5859]

Supreme Court, here we come!

I’m somewhat mystified that even after the Hobby Lobby case, we still have circuit courts deciding this way. I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand what they are thinking.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand what they are thinking.

Correction, I think you’re too smart to fall pray to the illogical mental gymnastics they must have to go through to justify their immoral positions.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Correcting, I think you’re too smart to fall pray to the illogical mental gymnastics they must have to go through to justify their immoral positions.

+1

 

[TMC]

Supreme Court, here we come!

I’m somewhat mystified that even after the Hobby Lobby case, we still have circuit courts deciding this way. I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand what they are thinking.

In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court actually suggested that an accommodation like the one currently being offered to churches would be acceptable. That is why the lower courts are allowing it, because of Hobby Lobby, not in spite of Hobby Lobby. Whether the Supreme Court agrees with its own suggestion once these cases are heard remains to be seen.

 

[JimG]

Quote:
It cannot be denied that the “accommodation” requires employers to contract covertly for the provision of the very services to which they may object. Yet that is just what Judge Smith does deny. Under HHS regulations, an objecting religious organization either fills out a standard EBSA Form 700 and sends it to HHS and its health insurance company, or notifies HHS by informal means, so long as it identifies all the particulars HHS needs in order to contact the insurance company itself. The result? The organization’s employees receive the covered services. If this is not “facilitating,” in a morally complicit fashion, the exact result to which the organizations object, then the word “facilitating” has no meaning.

I think the administration has a blind spot when it comes to contraception by any means, which it seems to consider as nearly a constitutional right. If the HHS mandate required coverage of infanticide, one wonders if the Court rulings would be the same, in effect telling the plaintiffs, “well, of course we realize that you find it objectionable, but you still must cooperate with the government in ensuring that employees can avail themselves of it.”

 

[CarolNoel]

Well, phooey!!!

 

[Erich]

That’s just it… they’re not thinking.

 

[SMH_2015]

Just wait, my friends. Things are only going to get worse. Count on it.

 

[Joe_5859]

In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court actually suggested that an accommodation like the one currently being offered to churches would be acceptable. That is why the lower courts are allowing it, because of Hobby Lobby, not in spite of Hobby Lobby. Whether the Supreme Court agrees with its own suggestion once these cases are heard remains to be seen.

Ah. That explains it.