Justice delays health law's birth control mandate


#1

JUSTICE DELAYS HEALTH LAW’S BIRTH CONTROL MANDATE

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s decision came after a different effort by Catholic-affiliated groups from around the nation. Those groups had rushed to the federal courts to stop Wednesday’s start of portions of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Sotomayor acted on a request from an organization of Catholic nuns in Denver, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Its request for an emergency stay had been denied earlier in the day by a federal appeals court.

The government is “temporarily enjoined from enforcing against applicants the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Sotomayor said in the order. She gave government officials until 10 a.m. EST Friday to respond to her order.

:extrahappy:


#2

Yayyyy


#3

Thanks be to God. :thumbsup:


#4

I was confused by reporting of this story. The injunction applies only to Little Sisters of the Poor, which is good, but it is not a general delay for any non-profit or for-profit organisation

Read the ruling at the following

becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13A691-Little-Sisters-v-Sebelius-Order.pdf


#5

Praise and thanks be to God!


#6

It may be a good sign that the injunction was issued by an Obama appointee when the full case goes to the Supreme Court. We might have another 9-0 vote against the Obama attack on religious liberty, ala Hosanna Tabor.

I am not sure how many 9-0 votes it will take to deter him. A landslide vote against his agenda in November will be more effective. Now we have to convince people of faith that an attack on religious liberty is really a big deal, even more important than the promise of another subsidy for something they want.


#7

WASHINGTON (AP) — Only hours before the law was to take effect, a Supreme Court justice on Tuesday blocked implementation of part of President Barack Obama’s health care law that would have forced some religion-affiliated organizations to provide health insurance for employees that includes birth control coverage.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s decision came after a different effort by Catholic-affiliated groups from around the U.S. Those groups had rushed to the federal courts to stop Wednesday’s start of portions of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Sotomayor acted on a request from an organization of Catholic nuns in Denver, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Its request for an emergency stay had been denied earlier in the day by a federal appeals court.

usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/31/health-law-catholic-contraception/4269917/


#8

Good for Justice Sotomayor. This issue will be presented before the full court this term I believe.


#9

I want to point out that Sotomayor was appointed by Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am happy to hear this decision, and since I’m a liberal, want my conservative brothers and sisters to see that the left is not homogeneous.

To me, the ACA is a good law in general. That being said, the contraception mandate came about through a process that involved a manipulation of science by members of the U.S. Prevention Services Task Force. ACA requires insurance plans to cover preventive services that the Task Force found efficacious from the perspective of health evidence.

The Task Force’s report mimics an oft-repeated meme of the women’s health community. That is (paraphrasing): “Of 100 couples who use natural family planning methods each year, anywhere from 1 to 25 will become pregnant” (Reference here). This meme is convenient in that it makes it appear that ALL natural family planning methods are risky in terms of preventing unintended pregnancy among sexually active women.

HOWEVER, the Task Force lumped in the Symptothermal Method in with all NFP methods, including “the rhythm method” (Caldendar-based). To attribute a conception risk of up to 25% for sexually active women seeking to avoid pregnancy is to obfuscate evidence that the Symptothermal Method is highly efficacious (as effective as the Pill or IUD, statistically speaking).


#10

I was wrong in thinking the injunction only applies to Little Sisters of the Poor, it also applies to

Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services, plus related entities.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-Court-Health-Overhaul/2013/12/31/id/544644

Justice Sonya Sotomeyer denied Hobby Lobby an injunction in 2012:

becketfund.org/statement-regarding-sotomayor-opinion

Hobby Lobby in addition to Conestoga Wood Specialties are the companies going before the Supreme court this year.

Why shoud she deny Hobby Lobby an injunction but not Christian Brothers Services and Little Sisters of the Poor? That’s why I do not know if she can take it as too much of a sign that she will stand on the side of religious liberty for all.


#11

Even if it is just for the Little Sisters now, it is still very good news. Every chip or brick out of the mandate is good news.


#12

Excellent point:thumbsup:


#13

I was wrong in thinking the injunction only applies to Little Sisters of the Poor, it also applies to

Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services, plus related entities.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-Court-Health-Overhaul/2013/12/31/id/544644

Justice Sonya Sotomeyer denied Hobby Lobby an injunction in 2012:

becketfund.org/statement-regarding-sotomayor-opinion

Hobby Lobby in addition to Conestoga Wood Specialties are the companies going before the Supreme court this year.

Why shoud she deny Hobby Lobby an injunction but not Christian Brothers Services and Little Sisters of the Poor? That’s why I do not know if we can take it as too much of a sign that she will stand on the side of religious liberty for all in regards to the mandate.


#14

I was wrong in thinking the injunction only applies to Little Sisters of the Poor, it also applies to

Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services, plus related entities.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-Court-Health-Overhaul/2013/12/31/id/544644

Justice Sonya Sotomeyer denied Hobby Lobby an injunction in 2012:

becketfund.org/statement-regarding-sotomayor-opinion

Hobby Lobby in addition to Conestoga Wood Specialties are the companies going before the Supreme court this year.

Why shoud she deny Hobby Lobby an injunction but not Christian Brothers Services and Little Sisters of the Poor? That’s why I do not know if we can take it as too much of a sign that she will stand on the side of religious liberty for all in regards to the mandate.:frowning:


#15

I was wrong in thinking the injunction only applies to Little Sisters of the Poor, it also applies to

Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services, plus related entities.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-Court-Health-Overhaul/2013/12/31/id/544644

Justice Sonya Sotomeyer denied Hobby Lobby an injunction in 2012:

becketfund.org/statement-regarding-sotomayor-opinion

Hobby Lobby in addition to Conestoga Wood Specialties are the companies going before the Supreme court this year.

Why shoud she deny Hobby Lobby an injunction but not Christian Brothers Services and Little Sisters of the Poor? That’s why I do not know if we can take it as too much of a sign that she will stand on the side of religious liberty for all in regards to the mandate


#16

I was wrong in thinking the injunction only applies to Little Sisters of the Poor, it also applies to

Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services, plus related entities.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-Court-Health-Overhaul/2013/12/31/id/544644

Justice Sonya Sotomeyer denied Hobby Lobby an injunction in 2012:

becketfund.org/statement-regarding-sotomayor-opinion

Hobby Lobby in addition to Conestoga Wood Specialties are the companies going before the Supreme court this year.

Why shoud she deny Hobby Lobby an injunction but not Christian Brothers Services and Little Sisters of the Poor? That’s why I do not know if we can take it as too much of a sign that she will stand on the side of religious liberty for all in regards to the mandate.:confused:


#17

I was wrong in thinking the injunction only applies to Little Sisters of the Poor, it also applies to

Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services, plus related entities.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-Court-Health-Overhaul/2013/12/31/id/544644

Hobby Lobby in addition to Conestoga Wood Specialties are the companies going before the Supreme court this year.

Why shoud she deny Hobby Lobby an injunction but not Christian Brothers Services and Little Sisters of the Poor? Becket Fund say in the review of the Hobby Lobby case

The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time.

Justice Sonya Sotomeyer denied Hobby Lobby an injunction in 2012:

becketfund.org/statement-regarding-sotomayor-opinion


#18

I was wrong in thinking the injunction only applies to Little Sisters of the Poor, it also applies to

Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services, plus related entities.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-Court-Health-Overhaul/2013/12/31/id/544644

Hobby Lobby in addition to Conestoga Wood Specialties are the companies going before the Supreme court this year.

Why shoud she deny Hobby Lobby an injunction but not Christian Brothers Services and Little Sisters of the Poor? Becket Fund say in the review of the Hobby Lobby case

The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time.

Justice Sonya Sotomeyer denied Hobby Lobby an injunction in 2012:

becketfund.org/statement-regarding-sotomayor-opinion


#19

**Good news. **

***Supreme Court Halts Birth Control Mandate For Catholic Group ***

huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/supreme-court-birth-control-catholic_n_4526315.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Supreme Court justice has blocked implementation of portions of President Barack Obama’s health care law that would have forced some religion-affiliated organizations to provide health insurance for employees that includes birth control.

Justice ***Sonia Sotomayor’s ***decision came Tuesday night after a different effort by Catholic-affiliated groups from around the nation. Those groups rushed to the federal courts to stop Wednesday’s start of portions of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Sotomayor acted on a request from an order of Catholic nuns in Colorado, whose request for a stay had been denied by the lower courts.

Sotomayor is giving the government until Friday morning to respond to her decision.


#20

:thumbsup:


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.