Supreme Court Ruling Allows Religious Freedom Lawsuits against Mandate to Proceed with Hope

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
According to a leading U.S. religious law firm, the arguments against the health care law recently rejected by the Supreme Court are separate and distinct legal challenges from those now being brought against the mandate. (The mandate requires Catholics along with all others to pay for sterilizations, the use of abortion-causing drugs, and contraceptives.) When the Supreme Court upheld the health care law, the justices indicated that a mandate interfering with religious freedom would be unconstitutional, four of the justices in their opinion saying this explicitly. This shows that the court may well strike down the mandate when they are asked to rule on it.
see www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=5714
 
Where can i view the full transcript of the ruling, please.
 
Is there a difference between the HHS mandate and the ObamaTax mandate that requires everyone to buy health care or pay a tax?

Can they strike down the entire mandate because of religious freedom interference? Could the court instead give a religious exception? But how would that work? How could you be sure that you would be paying for contraception, sterilisation. abortifacients or abortion?

It is a fact that that ObamaTax impinges on religious freedom, if Catholics and others who want a religious exception get it from the court then doesn’t that drive a wedge right into ObamaTax? How will those who want a religious exception then be forced to buy health care? Confusing.

Justice Ginsburg said something interesting yesterday which the Becket Fund pointed out could be a sign of the court’s willing to strike down the HHS mandate

‘a mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.’

becketfund.org/key-quotes-from-today-decision-that-signal-the-courts-willingness-to-strike-down-the-hhs-mandate
 
_Abyssinia said:
Is there a difference between the HHS mandate and the ObamaTax mandate that requires everyone to buy health care or pay a tax?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are two differen mandates. The “Individual Mandate” is the requirement that every American purchase health insurance or pay a -]penalty/-] tax. This is the decision that SCOTUS decided on yesterday.

What is popularly referred to as the “HHS mandate” is the mandate that all employers provide their employees with a health insurance plan that includes “preventive services” and no cost to the insured. In the months and years following the approval of “ObamaCare”, the Department of HHS defined “preventive services” to include birth control (including some abortifacients) and sterilization procedures. They provided an exemption clause for “religious institutions,” but then went on to define “religious instituions” so narrowly that no hospitals, schools, or social service agencies would fit the definition.

The Individual Mandate was found constituional under Congress’ power to tax, but the HHS Mandate is still waiting to see its day in Court.
 
If the “penalty” is now a tax, wouldn’t that bode ill for a religious exemption? I don’t know whether there is any relevant overlap between the American and Canadian systems, but in Canada, abortion is funded by tax money.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Yes, they are two differen mandates. The “Individual Mandate” is the requirement that every American purchase health insurance or pay a -]penalty/-] tax. This is the decision that SCOTUS decided on yesterday.

What is popularly referred to as the “HHS mandate” is the mandate that all employers provide their employees with a health insurance plan that includes “preventive services” and no cost to the insured. In the months and years following the approval of “ObamaCare”, the Department of HHS defined “preventive services” to include birth control (including some abortifacients) and sterilization procedures. They provided an exemption clause for “religious institutions,” but then went on to define “religious instituions” so narrowly that no hospitals, schools, or social service agencies would fit the definition.

The Individual Mandate was found constituional under Congress’ power to tax, but the HHS Mandate is still waiting to see its day in Court.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying. What can happen to the HHS mandate? A wider religious exemption? If that happens many will opt for this and will not buy insurance so how does this fit with ObamaTax which is supposed to be universal health care? Can HHS mandate be rescinded in its entirety?
 
I don’t see anything in the Courts Decision, which even suggest they made a ruling on Religious Freedom Lawsuits to go forward.

Did I miss it?

Jim
 
Never mind, I found it;
A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
Click to expand...
Jim
 
Lets hope and pray that we win these lawsuits. If we don’t, you can expect persecution to get worse I would imagine. Of course, I could be wrong but you never know.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I don’t see anything in the Courts Decision, which even suggest they made a ruling on Religious Freedom Lawsuits to go forward.

Did I miss it?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t expect they would need to include that in the recent ruling, as those suits are already proceeding on their own merits, are they not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top