Little-Acorn
11-02-2013, 01:00 PM
The most influential Federal court outside the Supreme Court, ruled Friday that a section of Obamacare was unconstitutional. The requirement that employers must provide health care insurance, including birth control, is a violation of employers' 1st amendment right to free exercise of religion, where their religion forbids birth control pills.
Remember that liberals have long maintained that since the USSC found one section of Obamacare (penalties for non-compliance) "constitutional" by rewriting them from the bench, that finding made all of Obamacare constitutional. Now that a Federal court found another part unconstitutional, those liberals will now agree that all of Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Remember too, that while early versions of the Obamacare bill had a clause ("severability") saying that it one part was struck down by the courts, the rest would remain in force... but in the final version that was actually passed, that clause was taken out. So, if the courts find this new part unconstitutional, by law the entire thing must be thrown out.
So far, at least two Appeals Courts have found the birth-control mandate unconstitutional, while at least two others have found it constitutional. This sets up a likely case before the Supreme Court in the future, to decide the matter.
------------------------------------------------------
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/02/appeals-court-strikes-down-obamacare-birth-control-mandate/
Appeals court strikes down Obamacare birth control mandate
Posted by
CNN's Greg Clary
Nov. 2, 2013
Washington (CNN) – In a ruling likely to set the stage for a battle in the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal appeals court has struck down an Obamacare mandate requiring some businesses to provide insurance coverage for birth control.
A key provision of Affordable Care Act championed by President Obama requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide medical insurance and coverage for contraceptives and pregnancy-related care. The companies must provide the coverage or pay a substantial financial penalty.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a lower court's ruling Friday and said the individual owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio, should not be forced to provide coverage for contraceptives to their employees.
In the 2-1 decision, the judges said forcing those owners to provide the coverage would violate their individual First Amendment rights allowing for the protection of their religion.
"The contraceptive mandate demands that owners like the Gilardis meaningfully approve and endorse the inclusion of contraceptive coverage in their companies' employer- provided plans, over whatever objections they may have," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote in the court opinion.
"The burden becomes substantial because the government commands compliance by giving the Gilardis a Hobson's choice," added Brown, a President George W. Bush appointee. "They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong. If that is not substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, we fail to see how the standard could be met."
Remember that liberals have long maintained that since the USSC found one section of Obamacare (penalties for non-compliance) "constitutional" by rewriting them from the bench, that finding made all of Obamacare constitutional. Now that a Federal court found another part unconstitutional, those liberals will now agree that all of Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Remember too, that while early versions of the Obamacare bill had a clause ("severability") saying that it one part was struck down by the courts, the rest would remain in force... but in the final version that was actually passed, that clause was taken out. So, if the courts find this new part unconstitutional, by law the entire thing must be thrown out.
So far, at least two Appeals Courts have found the birth-control mandate unconstitutional, while at least two others have found it constitutional. This sets up a likely case before the Supreme Court in the future, to decide the matter.
------------------------------------------------------
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/02/appeals-court-strikes-down-obamacare-birth-control-mandate/
Appeals court strikes down Obamacare birth control mandate
Posted by
CNN's Greg Clary
Nov. 2, 2013
Washington (CNN) – In a ruling likely to set the stage for a battle in the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal appeals court has struck down an Obamacare mandate requiring some businesses to provide insurance coverage for birth control.
A key provision of Affordable Care Act championed by President Obama requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide medical insurance and coverage for contraceptives and pregnancy-related care. The companies must provide the coverage or pay a substantial financial penalty.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a lower court's ruling Friday and said the individual owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio, should not be forced to provide coverage for contraceptives to their employees.
In the 2-1 decision, the judges said forcing those owners to provide the coverage would violate their individual First Amendment rights allowing for the protection of their religion.
"The contraceptive mandate demands that owners like the Gilardis meaningfully approve and endorse the inclusion of contraceptive coverage in their companies' employer- provided plans, over whatever objections they may have," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote in the court opinion.
"The burden becomes substantial because the government commands compliance by giving the Gilardis a Hobson's choice," added Brown, a President George W. Bush appointee. "They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong. If that is not substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, we fail to see how the standard could be met."