---------------------------
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided appeals court panel sided Friday with Ohio business owners who challenged the birth control mandate under the new federal health care law.
The business owners are two brothers, Francis and Philip M. Gilardi, who own Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio, and challenged the mandate on religious grounds. They say the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage would force them to violate their Roman Catholic beliefs and moral values by providing contraceptives such as the morning after pill for their employees. The law already exempts houses of worship from the requirement. (This is simply not true. The "law" does not exempt houses of worship. Obama himself exempted them, just as he delayed the employer mandate. It's astonishing that the President thinks he can modify duly passed law. It's even more astonishing that no one seems to mind.)
The ruling by a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of several on the birth control issue, which likely will be resolved by the Supreme Court. There are at least three other rulings by federal appeals courts on the mandate: One sided with Oklahoma businesses; and two sided with the Obama administration in challenges brought by Pennsylvania and Michigan companies.
Writing for the majority, Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote that the mandate “trammels the right of free exercise — a right that lies at the core of our constitutional liberties — as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
Brown, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said that the mandate presented the Gilardis with a “Hobson’s choice: 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.”
In an opinion dissenting from the court’s main holding in the case, Judge Harry T. Edwards wrote that legislative restrictions may trump religious exercise. He asked what, if the Gilardis’ companies were exempted from covering contraception, would stop another company from seeking an exemption from a requirement to cover vaccines? (Legislative restrictions may trump religious exercise? When? Under what understanding of the Constitution? Where in the statement "Congress shall make no law..." is Congress allowed to "trump" religious exercise? Whaaa?
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided appeals court panel sided Friday with Ohio business owners who challenged the birth control mandate under the new federal health care law.
The business owners are two brothers, Francis and Philip M. Gilardi, who own Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio, and challenged the mandate on religious grounds. They say the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage would force them to violate their Roman Catholic beliefs and moral values by providing contraceptives such as the morning after pill for their employees. The law already exempts houses of worship from the requirement. (This is simply not true. The "law" does not exempt houses of worship. Obama himself exempted them, just as he delayed the employer mandate. It's astonishing that the President thinks he can modify duly passed law. It's even more astonishing that no one seems to mind.)
The ruling by a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of several on the birth control issue, which likely will be resolved by the Supreme Court. There are at least three other rulings by federal appeals courts on the mandate: One sided with Oklahoma businesses; and two sided with the Obama administration in challenges brought by Pennsylvania and Michigan companies.
Writing for the majority, Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote that the mandate “trammels the right of free exercise — a right that lies at the core of our constitutional liberties — as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
Brown, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said that the mandate presented the Gilardis with a “Hobson’s choice: 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.”
In an opinion dissenting from the court’s main holding in the case, Judge Harry T. Edwards wrote that legislative restrictions may trump religious exercise. He asked what, if the Gilardis’ companies were exempted from covering contraception, would stop another company from seeking an exemption from a requirement to cover vaccines? (Legislative restrictions may trump religious exercise? When? Under what understanding of the Constitution? Where in the statement "Congress shall make no law..." is Congress allowed to "trump" religious exercise? Whaaa?
Judge Edwards appears to have limited reasoning skills. He attempts to draw a parallel between contraceptives and vaccines, as if someone who accepts vaccines couldn't possibly object to contraceptives. Of course, this is simply vapid.
The issue, which Judge Edwards desperately attempts to sidestep, is religious liberty, not opinions about the varieties of medical procedures. If someone objected to vaccines on a religious basis, it is no different than objecting to murder on a religious basis. Congress made a law, a law that prevents the free exercise of religion, which it is constitutionally forbidden to do. End of story.)
“The mandate does not require the Gilardis to encourage Freshway’s employees to use contraceptives any more directly than they do by authorizing Freshway to pay wages,” wrote Edwards, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter. (As I said, Judge Edwards' reasoning skills seem to be impaired. He attempts to divert the issue yet again by suggesting that the mandate does not require the Gilardi brothers to encourage the use of contraceptives. Whether or not someone actually gets encouraged to use contraceptives is irrelevant. The issue is the coerced approval of something via requiring its funding. The Gilardi brothers are being forced to pay for something that violates their religious sensibilities.
“The mandate does not require the Gilardis to encourage Freshway’s employees to use contraceptives any more directly than they do by authorizing Freshway to pay wages,” wrote Edwards, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter. (As I said, Judge Edwards' reasoning skills seem to be impaired. He attempts to divert the issue yet again by suggesting that the mandate does not require the Gilardi brothers to encourage the use of contraceptives. Whether or not someone actually gets encouraged to use contraceptives is irrelevant. The issue is the coerced approval of something via requiring its funding. The Gilardi brothers are being forced to pay for something that violates their religious sensibilities.
As far as the Judge's point about authorizing the payment of wages, who knows what is going through his mind? This makes no sense at all. Obamacare authorizes the payment of wages? The paying of wages is the same as funding contraceptive coverage? It's anyone's guess as to what the esteemed Judge is attempting to convey.
Quite simply, employers and employees make an agreement. The employee exchanges his labor and skill for wages. The Employer offers payment for skills and labor. Other factors in the exchange, like healthcare benefits, sick pay, etc., are part of the compensation page agreed to.
Then arrives obamacare, which intervenes in this voluntary, consensual relationship by mandating that the employer offer contraceptive coverage. This is the point at which conflict begins. No further extrapolation is necessary. The intervention point perpetrated by government is what violates the religious liberty of the Gilardi brothers.) He added that the Gilardis remain free to publicly express their disapproval of contraceptives. ("Express their disapproval," that is, exercise their free speech rights even as their religious liberty is violated? Truly odd reasoning. For a third time we witness the Judge attempting to divert the issue. Judge is happy to grant the ability to exercise one right even as he attempts to take away another.)
Quite simply, employers and employees make an agreement. The employee exchanges his labor and skill for wages. The Employer offers payment for skills and labor. Other factors in the exchange, like healthcare benefits, sick pay, etc., are part of the compensation page agreed to.
Then arrives obamacare, which intervenes in this voluntary, consensual relationship by mandating that the employer offer contraceptive coverage. This is the point at which conflict begins. No further extrapolation is necessary. The intervention point perpetrated by government is what violates the religious liberty of the Gilardi brothers.) He added that the Gilardis remain free to publicly express their disapproval of contraceptives. ("Express their disapproval," that is, exercise their free speech rights even as their religious liberty is violated? Truly odd reasoning. For a third time we witness the Judge attempting to divert the issue. Judge is happy to grant the ability to exercise one right even as he attempts to take away another.)
In a statement, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, a church-state watchdog group, said the Friday’s ruling turns “the concept of religious freedom on its head.
“Religious liberty means the right to make decisions for yourself, not other people,” Lynn said. “Freedom of religion should never be a blank check to meddle in the personal medical decisions of others.” (Barry Lynn continues the irrationality. Does he not understand that government forcing people to support what violates their religious convictions is unconstitutional? That no one should be obligated to pay for that violation? That what people do in the privacy of their homes with their own money and via their own choice is not being impacted here? That no one is meddling in those decisions?
Again we must note the intersection point of the constitutional violation. It was at the moment government attempted to violate the religious liberties of the Gilardi brothers. Subsequent eventualities are not relevant.
Rev. Lynn is a doctrinaire leftist. He appears to hate those who stand on their religious principles. He is such a True Believer in the goodness of all-powerful government that he believes the violation of the will of government is the highest sin. The "right" to contraception is paramount, superseding the rights of someone who would decline to pay for it. This is twisted.)
Rev. Lynn is a doctrinaire leftist. He appears to hate those who stand on their religious principles. He is such a True Believer in the goodness of all-powerful government that he believes the violation of the will of government is the highest sin. The "right" to contraception is paramount, superseding the rights of someone who would decline to pay for it. This is twisted.)
No comments:
Post a Comment