Federal judge deals another blow to ObamaCare contraceptive mandate


#1

A federal judge granted an injunction this weekend that prevents the government from enforcing the ObamaCare mandate requiring religious groups across the country to provide insurance that includes access to the morning-after pill and other contraceptives.

The preliminary injunction, issued in an Oklahoma City federal court, is based on a class-action lawsuit filed in October by 187 ministries.

The court order Friday came just days before ObamaCare coverage begins January 1, which could have resulted in the ministries facing thousands of dollars a day in tax penalties.

The groups provide employees with health benefits through GuideStone Financial Resources, the health benefits arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.

“This is an overwhelming victory for GuideStone and the nearly 200 plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit,” said Adele Keim, a lawyer for GuideStone and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty – a non-profit, public-interest law firm that helped represent the ministries in the case.

“Today’s ruling will allow hundreds of Baptist ministries to continue preaching the Gospel and serving the poor … without laboring under the threat of massive fines,” she said.

foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/21/federal-judge-deals-another-blow-to-obamacare-contraceptive-mandate


#2

Yes! Thank God! We should never give up fighting for our faith.


#3

Now, hopefully, they won’t allow their biases to get in the way of extending the same protections to the Catholic Church; or am I misunderstanding this, and this ruling would protect The Church?


#4

Depends on how they worded the opinion, but generally it would apply to anyone with a similar claim.


#5

This comes on the heels the other day of a federal judge saying non-profits had to provide abortifacient etc. coverage because a third party provides it. That story shows how askew our federal courts are with this closing statement about for-profits: In its next session, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius regarding whether closely held for-profit companies whose owners are religiously opposed to contraception can be forced to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.
This issue has deeply divided federal circuit courts.
The 3rd and 6th Circuits have refused to exempt such businesses from the mandate, finding that corporations “cannot engage in religious exercise.”
But the 10th, 7th and D.C. Circuits have stated: “There is nothing inherently incompatible between religious exercise and profit-seeking,” and ruled that religious business owners cannot be forced to violate their faith by the mandate.


#6

Probably just as many are hoping their premiums will go down after this ruling. Just saying.


#7

Premiums would likely go up… it’s far less expensive to provide contraceptives than it is to provide pre-natal care and pediatric care. The mandate should stay. It shouldn’t apply to churches, but it should definitely apply to any business that is a public accommodation.


#8

Why would you be for something that is an attack on our religious freedom?


#9

And how much more does it cost to treat the increased numbers of people infected with various sexually-transmitted diseases because they think they’re “safe”? Even leaving aside the issue of making those opposed to contraception buy it anyway, why should I have to pay for someone else’s sex life? I’m a smoker - should the government not only force you to pay for my eventual treatment, but for my cigarettes as well?


#10

It isn’t an attack on religious freedom. Women have a right to the highest standard of care. Whether you agree or not, access to contraceptives is considered the standard of care. Your religious beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on whether they should have access to that standard.


#11

You don’t have to pay for their sex life. The employers are paying for their health insurance… It is part of their compensation for services provided. Also, it doesn’t add any cost to most plans… The insurance companies eat the cost in most cases, because it is beneficial for them to do so. It’s has nothing to do with who’s paying for what… Your objective, and that of the church is to keep people from having access to contraceptives. You don’t want them to have any plan that provides it, even when there is no additional cost.


#12

That’s a stretch. That’s assuming that people will not use birth control if they have to pay for it out of their own pocket.


#13

Three Federal Judges disagree with you. Wanna guess whose opinion actually counts?

EDIT: Actually it’s closer to 40, but 3 just on the “accommodation”.


#14

Sterilisation and abortifiacents as in the morning after pill, in addition to contraception would have to paid for under the hhs mandate.

When an employer has to pay for insurance for their employers, it becomes the employer’s interest what they are paying for.

The Becket fund states, on rulings on the merits, 33 for for-profit organisations have had injunctions granted vs 6 denied, and 7 injunctions have been given to non profits, and 1 denied.

becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral

You can read the opinions of the rulings from Judges on the Becket fund website.


#15

It’s actually the reverse. :o Whether or not there are some judges who believe contraceptives are “standard of care” has no bearing on whether or not this is an attack on religious freedom. To boot, the federal government openly admits that oral contraceptives covered in this plan increase the risk of breast, liver, and cervical cancer in women. To reject the validity of this mandate, one not even need be religious. There are atheists who agree with the Church on this matter.

To double boot, the Church believes some contraceptives can have other uses for health besides contracepting. Their medical use is not the issue. It is paying for people to contracept and trying to force entities to be complicit in a behavior that is not health-related. These methods and medicines are actually, by design, intended to make the body function unnaturally.


#16

Judges don’t set the standard of care, the healthcare community does. As a medical provider I can tell you that contraceptives do have risks, as does every other medication. The risks for most contraceptives is very low as long as the medication is taken properly.


#17

Can you spell out for us - from a medical perspective - what conditions require contraceptives as contraceptives, not as hormone therapy and cannot be treated in any other way, such as simply not engaging in sex? Exactly what medical condition is treated by a condom?


#18

Or sterilizations or ulipristal acetate (the morning after pill), etc…


#19

There have been rulings that upheld the mandate as well, so at this point, the only opinions that are going to make a final decision on the subject are those of the 9 Supreme Court justices. I’m quite interested to see how they rule. I hope that they uphold the mandate, because I would hate to see them set a precedent that allows people to ignore the law whenever they choose and simply claim a religious belief as their excuse.


#20

It’s called preventative medicine. It prevents a condition. And just because there is one way of doing something doesn’t make other way invalid, or inferior.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.