EWTN vows no compromise after HHS lawsuit dismissal

[BigBlueCane]

You can’t prove your accusations. Got it.

I just did you just don’t accept them. Thats different. Again the USCCB claims its an attack on religious liberty yet they don’t list one instance where any religious institution is made to do anything against their beliefs. So if they claim something that they can’t prove what does that make them? Wrong.

 

[LilyM]

That its some sort of violation of religious liberty when they can’t explain how it is forcing any religious institution to do anything.

So only institutions are allowed to profess and adhere to faith and religious principles?

Only institutions are allowed to have consciences and only institutions are entitled to have their consciences respected?

Where is that in the Constitution? Doesn’t the Constitution guarantee individuals (such as individual employers who pay for their employees’ insurance) the same liberty where individuals and institutions alike are hampered unjustly in their practice of their faith?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I want to see the entire HHS mandate go before the supreme court

 

[CarolNoel]

I wish EWTN good luck in this. Somehow this madness must be stopped.

 

[ProVobis]

I want to see the entire HHS mandate go before the supreme court

Problem with that approach is that if the SC rules in favor of it, it pretty much seals the deal.

Let’s hope it gets resolved beforehand. Some judges have already given the administration some time to rewrite the mandate.

 

[Lucky7]

Problem with that approach is that if the SC rules in favor of it, it pretty much seals the deal.

Let’s hope it gets resolved beforehand. Some judges have already given the administration some time to rewrite the mandate.

I agree with Abyssnia. This needs to go to the USSC. It is a risk we take, but if the ruling is in our favor then it also seals that deal. Otherwise, I would imagine that there would always be the chance that it would get resurrected in the future.

 

[JimG]

Well if it does go to the Court, it will give us a chance to see just how far the Justices are willing to twist the First Amendment religion clause from its original meaning.

It provides that the Congress shall not establish a state religion. And it provides for the free exercise of one’s religion. It was intended to protect religious exercise from the government. There should not even be a need to provide waivers from not having one’s free exercise of religion restricted by the government.

And yet that’s what the HHS mandate does. It provides first, that only the HHS gets to determine who is religious enough to get a waiver, and then if you don’t get a waiver, you don’t get the free exercise of your religion.

So we’ve already come pretty far from the original intent. There are some on the secular left who would like to see the “free exercise of religion” abolished entirely, saying that religion should get no particular rights.

 

[livingwordunity]

I want to see the entire HHS mandate go before the supreme court

I don’t think that’s going to happen now that there’s a dictator regime in power that has a choke hold on the media, labor unions, public education, banks, auto industry, and now our healthcare system. What else is left for them to take?

 

[livingwordunity]

I want to see the entire HHS mandate go before the supreme court

Problem with that approach is that if the SC rules in favor of it, it pretty much seals the deal.

Let’s hope it gets resolved beforehand. Some judges have already given the administration some time to rewrite the mandate.

And Imperial Emperor Obama has the SC stacked in his favor.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Will EWTN find and insurance carrier that does not obey Obama’s mandate?

 

[scipio337]

I’ve read it and I’ve read the compromise. They’re simply wrong.

You claim “nothing to see here!” because you accept the Obama admin’s shell game of a “compromise”, while the Bishops see it for the tripe it is.

Simply put, you’re wrong.

You stick with Obama. I’ll stick with the Bishops.

 

[stellina]

It would be great if some attorneys here weighed in on the “unripeness” issue. I went to law school reluctantly & never really practiced law so I won’t pretend to be an expert; however, I will offer an opinion based on what I remember. Like pretty much everything in law, it’s difficult for a layman to understand. My diocese also filed a suit & it was dismissed for the same reason. “Ripeness” has to do with actual damages that can be proven right now; hence, if the plaintiff hasn’t actually suffered anything at the moment, the case isn’t “ripe.” So far, no one has suffered the financial penalties demanded by HHS or gotten thrown into jail for not complying, so these judges are reasoning that actual damage hasn’t been shown yet.

Then there’s the practical matter of this issue being a smoking hot potato & the courts don’t want to handle it before they really have to, but that’s just an educated guess on my part. Just for the record, I have absolutely nothing good to say about Obama & his supporters (I’m trying to be charitable here) so I want to be clear that I’m not making any excuses for them.

Again, I’d like to hear what a real lawyer has to say - I wasn’t exactly the sharpest cheese on the platter in school,

 

[ProVobis]

I agree with Abyssnia. This needs to go to the USSC. It is a risk we take, but if the ruling is in our favor then it also seals that deal. Otherwise, I would imagine that there would always be the chance that it would get resurrected in the future.

Okay but how did Roe vs Wade and the ACA rulings work out?

Just saying.

 

[Lucky7]

Okay but how did Roe vs Wade and the ACA rulings work out?

Just saying.

I still think it needs to happen.