Page 58 of 58 FirstFirst ... 848565758
Results 571 to 575 of 575

Thread: Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

  1. #571
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

    Quote Originally Posted by 0bserver92 View Post
    Well most of the departments aren't reporting what they are cutting so the opposition can't question it, and they can't vote on or propose changes.
    It's still early. We'll see.

  2. #572
    Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:50 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    967

    RE: Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

    Oh, guru, let me and any other person who dares question your knowledge of rights bow down before you. Roll eyes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    what ego, the eog of understand how rights, laws and facts work, giving examples of how they work and watching a hand full of people go but but but but but nu-huh LOL

    also everything given to me that i called opinion was in fact 100% opinion
    ego has nothing to do with reality, laws, rights, freedoms and facts
    Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

  3. #573
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

    Quote Originally Posted by jwzg View Post
    Oh, guru, let me and any other person who dares question your knowledge of rights bow down before you. Roll eyes.



    Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
    so you have nothing? nothing to back up your false claim? LMAO weird
    and i dont have a vast knowledge of them, but i understand this just like the court does and has to similar cases
    let me know when you have something factual to back up anything you said
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #574
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

    For decades, the Supreme Court has understood the Free Exercise clause to protect religious individuals and organizations from secular laws that would "substantially burden" their free exercise of religion. Courts have applied a multi-part legal test that, first, looks to whether the law in question is a neutral, generally-applicable law, not one specifically aimed at religious expression. Assuming that a law is neutral in its application, courts then ask two related questions: does the law's burden on religion serve a "compelling government interest," and is it "narrowly tailored" or the least restrictive means to furthering the government's interest? In sum, even a neutral law may not substantially burden religious exercise unless that burden is the least restrictive means necessary to serving a compelling government interest.

    The birth control mandate does not pass this test.

    First, assuming that the new rule is a neutral, generally-applicable regulation, it undoubtedly imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. On penalty of fine and federal sanction, the birth control mandate demands that many religious institutions do precisely what their religion forbids them from doing. The Catholic Church, to take an obvious example, requires that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." A papal encyclical on the subject prohibits "direct interruption of the generative process already begun," "sterilizations," and "any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specially intended to prevent procreation…" But the HHS mandate demands that Catholic schools, charities, and hospitals, for example, must provide their employees with health insurance plans that pay for contraception, sterilization, and even abortifacient drugs such as Plan B – a demand that effectively forces Catholics to violate either their conscience and their religion, or federal law. As Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades observed, "This is really an unprecedented rule from the federal government attempting to force religious institutions – and others, not just institutions but also individuals—to do things that we consider immoral; things that we consider sinful. In this case, that's providing, through our healthcare for our employees, contraception, sterilization, and even drugs that cause early abortion."14

    The Administration's contention that the mandate's burden does not violate the Free Exercise clause because the Catholic churches themselves, for example, would likely be exempt from the rule is a legal non-starter. Catholics, like those of many faiths, exercise and manifest their religious beliefs and callings in a variety of ways, including charity work, social service, education, medical outreach and counseling. The Supreme Court has already rejected drawing an artificial distinction between a church-proper and a church's mission, as if acts pursuant to the religious mission were beyond the First Amendment's protection. In 1987, the Court recognized that "[i]t is a significant burden on a religious organization to require it, on pain of substantial liability, to predict which of its activities a secular court will consider religious. The line is hardly a bright one, and an organization might understandably be concerned that a judge would not understand its religious tenets and sense of mission. Fear of potential liability might affect the way an organization carried out what it understood to be its religious mission."15

    Second, a neutral rule may substantially burden religious exercise and pass constitutional muster, but only if the government can show that the rule is the least restrictive means to accomplishing a compelling government interest. That is not the case here, however, where the Administration's only interest, according to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, appears to be in "provid[ing] women with greater access to contraception."16 Hardly compelling. Today, contraception for both men and women is readily available for those who want it at the local drug store, and it is commonly covered or subsidized by health insurance plans across the country. The statement released by HHS even acknowledges, "birth control… is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women."17 There are few, if any, barriers for women who want birth control. Thus, the Administration's alleged interest in "greater access to contraception" essentially means that it wants to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients – "free" in the sense that some third party pays for it, whether they want to or not. Such an interest is far from meeting the established definition of "compelling."

    Of course, even if providing free contraceptives to those who want them was a compelling government interest, the Obama Administration has not employed the least restrictive means to achieving that end. For starters, if the government wants to distribute free birth control, it could do so on the taxpayer's dime, and use tax dollars to pay for birth control to be distributed by federal agencies such as HHS or the FDA. Under this approach, no religious organization would be compelled to violate its creed or conscience to provide pharmaceuticals or procedures that it believes to be immoral – and so it is less restrictive than the President's mandate.

    The Birth Control Mandate is Unconstitutional
    So, the government is not making a compelling case, but rather IMHO, relying on appointed hacks on the Supreme Court like Justice Sotomayer to be in place to slap down challenges whether they are within her discretionary authority or not.

    The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.

    That case limited the protections available under the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion to those government actions that explicitly targeted religious practices, by subjecting them to difficult-to-satisfy strict judicial scrutiny. Other governmental actions, even if burdening religious activities, were held subject to a more deferential test.

    The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may "substantially burden" a person's "exercise of religion" only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.



    The law also provides that any later statutory override of its protections must be explicit. But there is nothing in the ObamaCare legislation that explicitly or even implicitly overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The birth-control mandate proposed by Health and Human Services is thus illegal.

    Rivkin and Whelan: Birth-Control Mandate—Unconstitutional and Illegal - WSJ.com
    So here we get the hurdle that HHS, and Obama obviously ignored.

    1. It has to be in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

    2. Must be the "Least restrictive" in its approach

    Neither hurdle is achieved in this overstep by this Government. However, I don't expect that either the administration really care if they are following the Constitution or not.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #575
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-19-13 @ 11:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1

    Re: Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I have 2 statements to make here:

    1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

    2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

    Article is here
    .

    I for one don't think a person's work place or the nations tax dollars should pay for employee's emergency birth control. While I do stand strong on the issue of the morning after pill being morally wrong, that isn't what this is about. We are not cradle to grave opressed socialists. We are strong independent Americans that shouldn't rely on our employers for emergency bc.

Page 58 of 58 FirstFirst ... 848565758

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •