Feds admit Supremes should review Obamacare – again!
But administration still insists courts judge legitimacy of religious beliefs
Published: 9 hours ago
The federal government has conceded that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to review the Obamacare law adopted exclusively by majority Democrats, but Obama administration officials still argue that judges must have the authority to decide whether or not a group’s or individual’s exercise of religion is burdened by the law.
The case was brought by the Denver-based Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns that runs retirement centers around the globe.
The nuns object to Obamacare’s requirement that employers cover abortion-causing drugs in health insurance plans, which violates their Roman Catholic beliefs.
The Catholic group also objected to the government’s offer to allow conscientious objectors to use a third party to provide the drugs to employees, arguing the organization would still be part of the process of providing the drugs.
Here’s the help you’ll need to prepare your household for the realities of living under a centralized health-care system — order Dr. Lee Hieb’s “Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of Obamacare”
A new brief filed in the Little Sisters case by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. appears to mischaracterize the dispute.
Verrilli said the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act “entitles petitioners not only to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage themselves, but also to prevent the government from arranging for third parties to provide separate coverage to the affected women.”
But the nuns argue the government’s alternative process still forces them to be part of the delivery.
Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Little Sisters, says it’s remarkable that the U.S. government argues it must have the help of the nuns to distribute contraceptives.
“The federal government doesn’t need the Little Sisters or any other ministry to help it distribute abortion-inducing drugs and other contraceptives. Yet it not only insists on forcing them to participate in the delivery, it argues that their beliefs against participating are wrong and that government officials and judges can tell the Little Sisters what Catholic theology really requires,” he said.
“That’s wrong, and it’s dangerous – especially when those same government officials have disrespectfully compared the Sisters’ beliefs to ‘fighting an invisible dragon’ that can be vanquished with the ‘stroke of the [Sisters'] own pen.’”
Verrilli contended that the Supreme Court does need to review the case, since there is a conflict among the circuit courts of appeal regarding the resolution.
But he remained adamant that the government must be able to decide for people of faith when their religion is burdened by governmental actions.
“Whether a regulation imposes a substantial burden cognizable under RFRA is a question of law that must be resolved by the court, not a question of fact controlled by the challenger’s sincere religious beliefs,” his brief says.
Verrilli’s claim conflicts with the opinion of several appeals court judges who felt so strongly that they tried to revive the arguments over the case themselves.
At the 10th Circuit, for example, Judge Bobby Baldock said Obamacare’s “accommodation scheme … forces the self-insured plaintiffs to perform an act that causes their beneficiaries to receive religiously objected-to coverage.”
“The fines the government uses to compel this act thus impose a substantial burden on the self-insured plaintiffs’ religion exercise. … Moreover, less restrictive means exist to achieve the government’s contraceptive coverage goals here,” he wrote.
Baldock said the government “has left self-insured plaintiffs in a position where they must decide whether their beneficiaries will actually receive objected-to contraceptive coverage.”
“The accommodation does not absolve these plaintiffs of this responsibility. Instead, it forces them to either (1) violate their sincere religious beliefs by performing an action that will cause their beneficiaries to receive objected-to coverage, or (2) violate the law. … This is a Hobson’s choice and thus a substantial burden on their religious exercise.”
Verrilli, however, told the court that the justices should leave the Little Sisters case as it is and instead review one of the other cases that raises similar questions.
Rienzi said, after the government submitted its brief suggesting the Supreme Court review Obamacare again: “What is the federal government afraid of? The government continues to insist that the Little Sisters help with its contraceptive delivery system, but doesn’t want to let them present their side at the Supreme Court. Just a few days ago the president told the pope he would ‘stand with’ the pope ‘in defense of religious freedom.’ Forcing nuns to violate their faith for no good reason is a very strange way to do that.”
He noted that so far, 18 federal appellate judges have blasted the Obamacare mandate.
“This growing tide has recognized the mandate scheme as ‘clearly and gravely wrong’ because ‘it is not the job of the judiciary to tell people what their religious beliefs are,’” the Becket Fund said in a statement.
WND reported when a federal appeals court in Denver temporarily suspended its demand that the nuns of the Denver-based Little Sisters of the Poor violate their faith by distributing contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs under Obamacare.
By a 2-1 vote July 14, the 10th U.S. Circuit ruled the Obama administration can force the nuns to provide their employees with the drugs.
Also involved in the case are Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, Christian Brothers Services, Reaching Souls International, Truett-McConnell College and GuideStone Financial Resources.
Earlier, the Supreme Court rewrote Obamacare to make the financial burdens “taxes” instead of “penalties,” so that it would be constitutional.
In a second trip to the Supreme Court, the justices ruled that Obamacare subsidies can be given to customers that sign up through the federal exchange as well as state exchanges, even though the law clearly states they are available only through state exchanges.
Read more at
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/feds-admit-supremes-should-review-obamacare-again/#3vf4p8hPO1VzvsEo.99
