DOJ to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion

[Jroc]

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton (AP Photo)

While presenting an oral argument in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last fall, a lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department told a federal judge that the Obama administration believed it could force the judge’s own wife—a physician—to act against her religious faith in the conduct of her medical practice.

The assertion came in the case of Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, a challenge to the Obama administration’s regulation requiring health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

Tyndale is a for-profit corporation that publishes Bibles, biblical commentaries and other religious works. Tyndale House Foundation, a religious non-profit organization, owns 96.5 percent of the corporation’s stock and receives 96.5 percent of its profits. The foundation’s mission is “to minister to the spiritual needs of people, primarily through grants to other religious charities.”

As a matter of religious principle, the foundation believes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong.

The corporation self-insures, providing its employees with a generous health-care plan. But, in keeping with its religious faith, it does not in any way provide abortions. For this reason, Tyndale sued the Obama administration, arguing that the Obamacare regulation that would force it to provide abortion-inducing drugs and IUDs in its health-care plan violated its right to the free-exercise of religion.

“Consistent with the religious beliefs of Tyndale and its owners, Tyndale’s self-insured plan does not and has never covered abortions or abortifacient drugs or devices such as emergency contraception and intrauterine devices,” Tyndale said in its legal complaint, prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

When Tyndale sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the administration from enforcing the regulation on the company before the federal courts could determine the issue on its merits, Benjamin Berwick, a lawyer for the Civil Division of the Justice Department presented the administration's argument for why Tyndale should be forced to act against the religious faith of its owners. The oral argument over the preliminary injunction occurred Nov. 9 in Judge Walton’s court.

DOJ to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion | CNS News

 

[AmyNation]

What abortion inducing drugs does the ACA mandate?

 

[Jroc]

What abortion inducing drugs does the ACA mandate?

Obama administration has decided to move forward with its mandate that private insurance companies must provide "free" coverage of contraception and sterilization procedures, as well as an abortion pill called "ella"--which is much friendlier sounding than its "close chemical relative" RU-486.

Obamacare Will Mandate Free Coverage of Abortion Drug & Contraception Without Religious Exemption | The Weekly Standard

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What abortion inducing drugs does the ACA mandate?

Do you understand the concept of individual freedom?

Something to think about here, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

~Ayn Rand

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DOJ to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion

Wrong.

The DOJ was arguing that this case was similar to a Missouri case, where the court ruled that requiring health coverage, which may include contraceptive therapy, did not manifest an undue burden on the plaintiff’s religious expression:

The defendants nonetheless urge the Court to adopt the reasoning of O'Brien v. HHS, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 4481208 (E.D. Mo. 2012). There, the court considered the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to plaintiffs Frank O'Brien and O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, "a secular, for-profit company in St. Louis, Missouri, that is engaged in the business of mining, processing, and distributing refractory and ceramic materials and products," of which Mr. O'Brien is the chairman and managing member. Id. at __, *1. Mr. O'Brien is Catholic and "tries to manage and operate [his company] in a manner consistent with his religion." Id. The company's lobby contains a religious statue, the company's mission and statement of values contain religious references, and the company and its subsidiaries pledge to tithe the earnings generated by the companies. Id. __, *1 n.3. The company also provides health insurance to its employees through a group plan. Id. at __, *2. The O'Brien plaintiffs brought a RFRA claim against the same six defendants currently before this Court, alleging that inclusion of contraceptive coverage in the company's group plan would violate the plaintiffs' religious belief that requires the "condemnation of contraception." Id. at __, *4.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' RFRA claim, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdened their religious exercise. Id. at __, *6-7. Describing the burden at issue as the "funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, [that] might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the company's] plan, subsidize someone else's participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs' religion," the court reasoned that the burden on the plaintiffs' religious exercise was simply too attenuated to qualify as "substantial." Id. at __, *6 (emphasis in original). The court emphasized that the decision to use contraceptives, the objectionable act, was ultimately in the hands of a third party, the plan participant, and that such a burden was not within the contemplation of the RFRA. See id. (stating that the RFRA "protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one's religion forbids, or forbids action one's religion requires; it is not a means to force one's religious practices upon others"). The court therefore found that this "slight" burden of requiring the plaintiffs to contribute to a group plan that provides contraceptive coverage "has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff's [sic] religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees." Id. at __, *6-7.

Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius - Google Scholar

Consequently it’s a lie to state the government was arguing that it could ‘violate’ a person’s religious beliefs, when in fact it was making a perfectly appropriate and legitimate argument predicated on another court’s decision.

 

[bucs90]

Some women are put on birth control due to ovarian cancer risks. Im no expert, but, I knew two women who were prescribed the pill due to their risk factor for ovarian cancer.

So, if a woman needs it to prevent or treat the caner risk, should a doctor be able to deny it based on religious beliefs?

Next. Some religions believe in the use of marijuana. What if a doctor of that religious belief tries to prescribe weed for anti-depression, where weed is not legal? Should he religious beliefs be suppressed by the government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some women are put on birth control due to ovarian cancer risks. Im no expert, but, I knew two women who were prescribed the pill due to their risk factor for ovarian cancer.

So, if a woman needs it to prevent or treat the caner risk, should a doctor be able to deny it based on religious beliefs?

Next. Some religions believe in the use of marijuana. What if a doctor of that religious belief tries to prescribe weed for anti-depression, where weed is not legal? Should he religious beliefs be suppressed by the government?

I do not give a fuck, there is no need for what is, essentially, a routine expense to be covered by insurance.

 

[Oldguy]

DOJ to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion

Wrong.

The DOJ was arguing that this case was similar to a Missouri case, where the court ruled that requiring health coverage, which may include contraceptive therapy, did not manifest an undue burden on the plaintiff’s religious expression:

The defendants nonetheless urge the Court to adopt the reasoning of O'Brien v. HHS, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 4481208 (E.D. Mo. 2012). There, the court considered the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to plaintiffs Frank O'Brien and O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, "a secular, for-profit company in St. Louis, Missouri, that is engaged in the business of mining, processing, and distributing refractory and ceramic materials and products," of which Mr. O'Brien is the chairman and managing member. Id. at __, *1. Mr. O'Brien is Catholic and "tries to manage and operate [his company] in a manner consistent with his religion." Id. The company's lobby contains a religious statue, the company's mission and statement of values contain religious references, and the company and its subsidiaries pledge to tithe the earnings generated by the companies. Id. __, *1 n.3. The company also provides health insurance to its employees through a group plan. Id. at __, *2. The O'Brien plaintiffs brought a RFRA claim against the same six defendants currently before this Court, alleging that inclusion of contraceptive coverage in the company's group plan would violate the plaintiffs' religious belief that requires the "condemnation of contraception." Id. at __, *4.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' RFRA claim, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdened their religious exercise. Id. at __, *6-7. Describing the burden at issue as the "funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, [that] might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the company's] plan, subsidize someone else's participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs' religion," the court reasoned that the burden on the plaintiffs' religious exercise was simply too attenuated to qualify as "substantial." Id. at __, *6 (emphasis in original). The court emphasized that the decision to use contraceptives, the objectionable act, was ultimately in the hands of a third party, the plan participant, and that such a burden was not within the contemplation of the RFRA. See id. (stating that the RFRA "protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one's religion forbids, or forbids action one's religion requires; it is not a means to force one's religious practices upon others"). The court therefore found that this "slight" burden of requiring the plaintiffs to contribute to a group plan that provides contraceptive coverage "has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff's [sic] religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees." Id. at __, *6-7.

Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius - Google Scholar

Consequently it’s a lie to state the government was arguing that it could ‘violate’ a person’s religious beliefs, when in fact it was making a perfectly appropriate and legitimate argument predicated on another court’s decision.

A lot of companies suing for relief under Obamacare are basically making the case that corporations have the same religious liberties as individuals.

Has anybody stopped to consider the ramifications if they should win using that argument?

 

[Agit8r]

DOJ to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion

Wrong.

The DOJ was arguing that this case was similar to a Missouri case, where the court ruled that requiring health coverage, which may include contraceptive therapy, did not manifest an undue burden on the plaintiff’s religious expression:

The defendants nonetheless urge the Court to adopt the reasoning of O'Brien v. HHS, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 4481208 (E.D. Mo. 2012). There, the court considered the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to plaintiffs Frank O'Brien and O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, "a secular, for-profit company in St. Louis, Missouri, that is engaged in the business of mining, processing, and distributing refractory and ceramic materials and products," of which Mr. O'Brien is the chairman and managing member. Id. at __, *1. Mr. O'Brien is Catholic and "tries to manage and operate [his company] in a manner consistent with his religion." Id. The company's lobby contains a religious statue, the company's mission and statement of values contain religious references, and the company and its subsidiaries pledge to tithe the earnings generated by the companies. Id. __, *1 n.3. The company also provides health insurance to its employees through a group plan. Id. at __, *2. The O'Brien plaintiffs brought a RFRA claim against the same six defendants currently before this Court, alleging that inclusion of contraceptive coverage in the company's group plan would violate the plaintiffs' religious belief that requires the "condemnation of contraception." Id. at __, *4.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' RFRA claim, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdened their religious exercise. Id. at __, *6-7. Describing the burden at issue as the "funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, [that] might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the company's] plan, subsidize someone else's participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs' religion," the court reasoned that the burden on the plaintiffs' religious exercise was simply too attenuated to qualify as "substantial." Id. at __, *6 (emphasis in original). The court emphasized that the decision to use contraceptives, the objectionable act, was ultimately in the hands of a third party, the plan participant, and that such a burden was not within the contemplation of the RFRA. See id. (stating that the RFRA "protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one's religion forbids, or forbids action one's religion requires; it is not a means to force one's religious practices upon others"). The court therefore found that this "slight" burden of requiring the plaintiffs to contribute to a group plan that provides contraceptive coverage "has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff's [sic] religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees." Id. at __, *6-7.

Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius - Google Scholar

Consequently it’s a lie to state the government was arguing that it could ‘violate’ a person’s religious beliefs, when in fact it was making a perfectly appropriate and legitimate argument predicated on another court’s decision.

A lot of companies suing for relief under Obamacare are basically making the case that corporations have the same religious liberties as individuals.

Has anybody stopped to consider the ramifications if they should win using that argument?

Not really. Because individuals engaged in commerce can't force their religious views on their employees either.

"The conclusion that there is a conflict between the Amish faith and the obligations imposed by the social security system is only the beginning, however, and not the end of the inquiry. Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. See, e. g., Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest.

...Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees. "
-- from majority opinion United States v. Lee (1982)
Read more at Freedom FROM Religion - Broowaha

 

[freedombecki]

What abortion inducing drugs does the ACA mandate?

Obama administration has decided to move forward with its mandate that private insurance companies must provide "free" coverage of contraception and sterilization procedures, as well as an abortion pill called "ella"--which is much friendlier sounding than its "close chemical relative" RU-486.

Obamacare Will Mandate Free Coverage of Abortion Drug & Contraception Without Religious Exemption | The Weekly Standard

I believe Obamacare violates Amendment I.

I'm sorry Obama was ushered back into power by people who have been misinformed by journalistic omission of facts who used to be but no longer are nonparticipants in politics. Instead, they are political cheerleaders for a failed system of government--socialism going community-based.

 

[AmyNation]

Some women are put on birth control due to ovarian cancer risks. Im no expert, but, I knew two women who were prescribed the pill due to their risk factor for ovarian cancer.

So, if a woman needs it to prevent or treat the caner risk, should a doctor be able to deny it based on religious beliefs?

Next. Some religions believe in the use of marijuana. What if a doctor of that religious belief tries to prescribe weed for anti-depression, where weed is not legal? Should he religious beliefs be suppressed by the government?

I do not give a fuck, there is no need for what is, essentially, a routine expense to be covered by insurance.

The government shouldn't mandate insurance packages at all.


However, they have been mandating basic preventive coverage for a long time, and birth control falls into that category, just like check ups, shots, mammograms etc etc.

 

[Oldguy]

Not really. Because individuals engaged in commerce can't force their religious views on their employees either.

That's exactly what Hobby Lobby and other businesses are arguing for. The owners want to deny their employees reproductive care options because of their own religious convictions, which could hardly be argued as anything else other than forcing their religious vies onto their employees...right?

That can't be seen as anything other than expanding the religious freedom rights of the 1st Amendment to include corporations, which already have been deemed "persons" in the legal sense.

Where does this end? Once the law accepts the rights of corporations as being equal to Constitutional rights of individuals, does that mean no member of a corporation may be forced to testify against that corporation (5th Amendment) or that a corporation has the right to arm its employees (2nd Amendment)? Does that mean a Muslim business owner may impose the Sharia punishment for theft from the corporation and claim his religious liberty to do so? Can a Muslim employer require his female employees to wear a bur qua on the job?

Somebody needs to really seriously think this through before we go any farther.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really. Because individuals engaged in commerce can't force their religious views on their employees either.

That's exactly what Hobby Lobby and other businesses are arguing for. The owners want to deny their employees reproductive care options because of their own religious convictions, which could hardly be argued as anything else other than forcing their religious vies onto their employees...right?

That can't be seen as anything other than expanding the religious freedom rights of the 1st Amendment to include corporations, which already have been deemed "persons" in the legal sense.

Where does this end? Once the law accepts the rights of corporations as being equal to Constitutional rights of individuals, does that mean no member of a corporation may be forced to testify against that corporation (5th Amendment) or that a corporation has the right to arm its employees (2nd Amendment)? Does that mean a Muslim business owner may impose the Sharia punishment for theft from the corporation and claim his religious liberty to do so? Can a Muslim employer require his female employees to wear a bur qua on the job?

Somebody needs to really seriously think this through before we go any farther.

No, idiot. As usual you have it wrong.
No one is denying anything to anyone. Except the Obama administration denying people the free exercise of their religion. Hobby Lobby does not believe in abortion. They do not want to pay for someone else's abortion. Yet Obamacare mandates that their personal religious scruples be damned and they must cover something they believe is immoral.
Can a Muslim employer require the burqa? Yes, why shouldnt they be allowed to? And the employee can find work elsewhere.

 

[Oldguy]

Not really. Because individuals engaged in commerce can't force their religious views on their employees either.

That's exactly what Hobby Lobby and other businesses are arguing for. The owners want to deny their employees reproductive care options because of their own religious convictions, which could hardly be argued as anything else other than forcing their religious vies onto their employees...right?

That can't be seen as anything other than expanding the religious freedom rights of the 1st Amendment to include corporations, which already have been deemed "persons" in the legal sense.

Where does this end? Once the law accepts the rights of corporations as being equal to Constitutional rights of individuals, does that mean no member of a corporation may be forced to testify against that corporation (5th Amendment) or that a corporation has the right to arm its employees (2nd Amendment)? Does that mean a Muslim business owner may impose the Sharia punishment for theft from the corporation and claim his religious liberty to do so? Can a Muslim employer require his female employees to wear a bur qua on the job?

Somebody needs to really seriously think this through before we go any farther.

No, idiot. As usual you have it wrong.
No one is denying anything to anyone. Except the Obama administration denying people the free exercise of their religion. Hobby Lobby does not believe in abortion. They do not want to pay for someone else's abortion. Yet Obamacare mandates that their personal religious scruples be damned and they must cover something they believe is immoral.
Can a Muslim employer require the burqa? Yes, why shouldnt they be allowed to? And the employee can find work elsewhere.

No, Hobby Lobby does not believe in abortion. It's a corporation which does not, cannot "believe" in anything. Hobby Lobby's OWNER does not believe in abortion and that's a key difference.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's exactly what Hobby Lobby and other businesses are arguing for. The owners want to deny their employees reproductive care options because of their own religious convictions, which could hardly be argued as anything else other than forcing their religious vies onto their employees...right?

That can't be seen as anything other than expanding the religious freedom rights of the 1st Amendment to include corporations, which already have been deemed "persons" in the legal sense.

Where does this end? Once the law accepts the rights of corporations as being equal to Constitutional rights of individuals, does that mean no member of a corporation may be forced to testify against that corporation (5th Amendment) or that a corporation has the right to arm its employees (2nd Amendment)? Does that mean a Muslim business owner may impose the Sharia punishment for theft from the corporation and claim his religious liberty to do so? Can a Muslim employer require his female employees to wear a bur qua on the job?

Somebody needs to really seriously think this through before we go any farther.

No, idiot. As usual you have it wrong.
No one is denying anything to anyone. Except the Obama administration denying people the free exercise of their religion. Hobby Lobby does not believe in abortion. They do not want to pay for someone else's abortion. Yet Obamacare mandates that their personal religious scruples be damned and they must cover something they believe is immoral.
Can a Muslim employer require the burqa? Yes, why shouldnt they be allowed to? And the employee can find work elsewhere.

No, Hobby Lobby does not believe in abortion. It's a corporation which does not, cannot "believe" in anything. Hobby Lobby's OWNER does not believe in abortion and that's a key difference.

That makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

 

[chikenwing]

Some women are put on birth control due to ovarian cancer risks. Im no expert, but, I knew two women who were prescribed the pill due to their risk factor for ovarian cancer.

So, if a woman needs it to prevent or treat the caner risk, should a doctor be able to deny it based on religious beliefs?

Next. Some religions believe in the use of marijuana. What if a doctor of that religious belief tries to prescribe weed for anti-depression, where weed is not legal? Should he religious beliefs be suppressed by the government?

I do not give a fuck, there is no need for what is, essentially, a routine expense to be covered by insurance.

The government shouldn't mandate insurance packages at all.


However, they have been mandating basic preventive coverage for a long time, and birth control falls into that category, just like check ups, shots, mammograms etc etc.

So does tooth paste,should htat be included also???

 

[AmyNation]

I do not give a fuck, there is no need for what is, essentially, a routine expense to be covered by insurance.

The government shouldn't mandate insurance packages at all.


However, they have been mandating basic preventive coverage for a long time, and birth control falls into that category, just like check ups, shots, mammograms etc etc.

So does tooth paste,should htat be included also???

If its prescription strength and the panel of professionals who make such decisions included it, sure.

 

[chikenwing]

The government shouldn't mandate insurance packages at all.


However, they have been mandating basic preventive coverage for a long time, and birth control falls into that category, just like check ups, shots, mammograms etc etc.

So does tooth paste,should htat be included also???

If its prescription strength and the panel of professionals who make such decisions included it, sure.

If birth control pills are NEEDED for a condition other than not being pregnant then its no different than any other prescription,but if its going to be used just fr birth control,then buy it yourself its cheap take responsibility for yourself.

 

[AmyNation]

So does tooth paste,should htat be included also???

If its prescription strength and the panel of professionals who make such decisions included it, sure.

If birth control pills are NEEDED for a condition other than not being pregnant then its no different than any other prescription,but if its going to be used just fr birth control,then buy it yourself its cheap take responsibility for yourself.

If the government can mandate basic preventive coverage, then birth control can and should be mandated.

 

[Jroc]

The government shouldn't mandate insurance packages at all.


However, they have been mandating basic preventive coverage for a long time, and birth control falls into that category, just like check ups, shots, mammograms etc etc.

So does tooth paste,should htat be included also???

If its prescription strength and the panel of professionals who make such decisions included it, sure.

Obama's panel of professionals will be government bureaucrats, kind of a super legislator, will the ability to make law, and tax people without congressional approval

Obamacare Hidden Panel of Unelected Officials Beyond Congressional Control


The Cato Institute released a study entitled, The Independent Payment Advisory Board: PPACA’s Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature, authored by Diane Cohen and Michael Cannon, which states that once the “unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law.”

The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is comprised of “doctors and patient advocates would be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.”

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a.k.a. Obamacare, requires that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (SHHS) implement the proposal. Denying its execution would necessitate the House, Senate and President agree on an alternate plan.

The IPAB’s plan would become law without Congressional approval, oversight, or even be subject to a presidential veto. Once this proposal is submitted, it is law.

The IPAB was the brain child of the Commonwealth Fund ; a private foundation that targets “society’s most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.”

The IPAB will be enabled to declare:

• Policies regarding healthcare to Congress
• Recommendations on costs, mitigating waste, prioritizing disbursement of care
• Impose taxes whether the US government pays the medical bills or not
• Ration medical care to Americans as they see fit

Prison Planet.com » Obamacare Hidden Panel of Unelected Officials Beyond Congressional Control