Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Freedom Of Religion--Is It Over?


The freedom of religion takes another hit from a US District Judge in Missouri who ruled that employers must follow federal law in the case of providing birth control to all of their employees. We understand the ruling as it strikes down state law in favor of Federal law, however, doesn't an employer have the right to follow his religion in this regard? Apparently the answer is no.

We would hope that the ruling will be appealed to the US Supreme Court, however, we are not expecting a fair hearing based on Justice Roberts bias in favor of Obama Care.  He will join with the other liberal justices to not even consider taking up the case and should it come to the Court, he will vote against it. Whoever convinced Roberts to sell his soul must be the devil!

This case impacts two amendments. The first as it refers to freedom of religion and the tenth as it relates to states retaining control over all things not delegated to the Federal government. It should be a slam dunk ( a little March Madness lingo there), however, since Roberts has been turned, it is not. We are seeing a slow dismembering of the Constitution.

This ruling is another step toward total dictatorial government control and then onto anarchy. Every day we are closer.

Prepare yourself, it is coming.

Conservative Tom

P.S. If you disagree, please let us know.


MO JUDGE STRIKES DOWN RELIGIOUS BIRTH CONTROL EXEMPTION: ‘A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM AMERICA’S TRADITION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM’

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (TheBlaze/AP) — President Barack Obama’s health care law continues to spark debate about conscience and contraception. In the latest development, a federal judge has struck down a Missouri law exempting moral objectors from mandatory birth control coverage because it conflicts with an insurance requirement under the health care law.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig cites a provision in the U.S. Constitution declaring that federal laws take precedence over contradictory state laws. But Fleissig emphasized that she was taking no position on the merits of the Obama administration policy, which requires insurers to cover contraception at no additional cost to women.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster did not say on Monday whether he would appeal the ruling, which was dated Thursday but not publicized.
Missouri Judge Rules Against Law Protecting Against Mandatory Birth Control Coverage
Photo Credit: AP
The anti-abortion group Campaign Life Missouri distributed an email Monday denouncing the ruling as “a radical departure from America’s tradition of religious freedom” and imploring people to contact Koster’s office in support of an appeal. Some backers of Missouri’s law said the court ruling could result in churches and other religious organizations having to accept insurance policies that include contraception coverage.
The Missouri law requires insurers to issue policies without contraception coverage if individuals or employers assert that the use of birth control violates their “moral, ethical or religious beliefs.” The state’s Republican-led Legislature overrode the veto of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon last September to enact the law, which appeared to be the first in the nation to directly rebut the Obama administration’s contraception policy.
Fleissig had issued a temporary restraining order against Missouri’s law last December. The law had been challenged by insurance providers, who feared they could be caught in legal quagmire by the differing federal and state requirements.
In her ruling, Fleissig wrote that the state law “is in conflict with, and pre-empted by, existing federal law” and “could force health insurers to risk fines and penalties by choosing between compliance with state or federal law.”
The judge noted that the federal law includes penalties of $100 per day per employee and an annual tax surcharge of $2,000 per employee for violations of its provisions. The state insurance department already issued orders seeking civil penalties against two insurers for not offering plans excluding contraception coverage as required by the Missouri law.
The ruling “clears up what law they have to write the policies under, and that’s all we were asking,” said Brent Butler, the government affairs director for the Missouri Insurance Coalition, an industry trade group that was one of the plaintiffs.
Missouri Judge Rules Against Law Protecting Against Mandatory Birth Control Coverage
FILE – In this Feb. 7, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks at the House Democratic Issues Conference in Lansdowne, Va. For all of his liberal positions on the environment, taxes and health care, Obama is a hawk when it comes to the war on terror. Credit: AP 
Although she struck it down, Fleissig did not issue a permanent injunction against Missouri’s law because she said the state insurance department had agreed not to enforce it and to withdraw its administrative complaints against the health insurers.
Among those supporting the Missouri law was Our Lady’s Inn, a St. Louis area nonprofit that provides homes and counseling for pregnant women. The organization had filed a court document saying it wanted to use the Missouri law to opt out of contraception coverage for its employees’ insurance policies.
“The point of the law was to tell health insurance companies that they’re supposed to honor the wishes – pro or con – of people who have religious or ethical objections to what’s in the policy,” said Timothy Belz, a St. Louis attorney who represented Our Lady’s Inn.
Under the Obama administration policy, churches are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement, but it would extend to insurers who provide policies to religiously affiliated nonprofits such as hospitals, colleges or charities.
Before last year’s legislation, Missouri had been operating under a 2001 law that required birth control prescriptions to be covered under policies that include pharmaceutical benefits at the same co-payment as other medications. That law also had allowed insurers to offer policies without contraception coverage to people or employers who say it violated their moral or religious beliefs. Fleissig’s ruling left in place in the wording requiring contraception to be included in pharmaceutical coverage but struck down the section containing the opt-out provisions.
“Now you’ve got a situation where the Missouri law requires more in the way of contraceptive coverage than Obamacare does,” Belz said.
Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, praised the ruling for ensuring “that all Missouri women -no matter who their boss is – have access to basic preventive health care without a co-pay, including birth control.”

1 comment:

  1. Fact-checking…

    "Under the proposed accommodations, the eligible organizations would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.

    In addition, under the proposed accommodations, plan participants would receive contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies, without cost sharing or additional premiums. The issuer would work to ensure a seamless process for plan participants to receive contraceptive coverage."

    http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/factsheets/womens-preven-02012013.html

    The women contract directly with the insurance company for their contraceptives separate from their employer-based healthcare policy.

    -----------
    Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

    The Missouri law is flat unconstitutional. If it makes it to the Supreme Court, I doubt it will be a test for our Roberts project.

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.