Obama’s Executive Order on forcing free contraceptive could face tough sledding in the Supreme Court


Los Angeles Times ( a liberal bird cage liner and fish wrapper seems to have gotten this one right.)

Commentary by Jim Campbell

If we are profoundly lucky the Justices on the Supreme Court will slap down Obama care along with his illegal Executive Order mandating free birth control be provided by church -run schools and universities in early March.

The alleged Constitutional Law instructor would do well to read possibly for the first time about the separation between Church and State.  Here you go Mr. President:

Stipulations of the 1st Amendment:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes an individual’s right to practice whichever religion they see fit.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

The Supreme Court and the Obama administration, already headed for a face-off in March over the constitutionality of the health care law, appear to be on another collision course over whether church-run schools, universities, hospitals and charities must provide free contraceptives to their students and employees, says the Los Angeles Times.

  • The dispute stems from one of the more popular parts of the new health care law: its requirement that all health plans provide “preventive services” for free.
  • That category includes vaccines and such routine screenings as cholesterol checkups and mammograms.
  • Starting this year, it also includes coverage of birth control pills, IUDs and other contraceptives.

Catholic leaders reacted fiercely when the administration announced in recent days that it would hold most religious institutions to that mandate, even those that have moral and religious objections to what some of their lawyers describe as “abortion-inducing drugs.”

Already two religious colleges have sued, and their cause got a major boost earlier this month from a unanimous Supreme Court decision that greatly expanded the definition of religious freedom.  In a 9-0 defeat for the administration, the justices said the First Amendment gives “special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations” in decisions about their employees.  Lawyers challenging the rule say the dispute is not about women using contraception, but about forcing the Catholic Church to pay for it.

  • The law exempts churches, themselves, and some other religious entities that “primarily” employ and serve persons of the same faith.
  • Catholic officials, however, say that definition is too narrow and excludes church-run colleges, hospitals and charities, and many primary schools.

The suits are at their early stage, and the administration is due to respond next month.  If the case eventually reaches the high court, they would come before a tribunal with six Catholics among the nine justices.

Source: David G. Savage, “Contraceptive Mandate Could Face Tough Sledding in Supreme Court,” Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2012.

For text:

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-contraception-20120131,0,4833667.story

About these ads

7 responses to “Obama’s Executive Order on forcing free contraceptive could face tough sledding in the Supreme Court

  1. JC
    What is your feeling towards the already Unconstitutionally mandated Court Cases that have been won so far??? Is it possible that maybe SCOTUS will slap down Obamacare altogether???

  2. My state won their case and is now before SCOTUS for their ruling.

  3. What on earth gives the President any power to tell churches anything. The ploy is to discount the church and rid the US of all churches. The plan cannot go through as long as people beleive in God and not the government. If I lead the church I would tell Obama to shut the hell up. What we beleive and how we act is our business and not his or anyones in Washington.

    • No the dumb Kenyan has no right to tell churches what,when or how to run their Church.He wants Islam Mosques built all over the USA because that is what he thinks the one world religion will be. Not going to happen.

  4. Well, this i s just too cute (yes, sarcasm) — he is now in the beds of people at home having sex….stupid!!!!!! I don’t have a word to describe this.

  5. Shirley Brinker

    I hope the Church’s take it to the Supreme Court to have that law to be declared unconstitutional.

    • Shirley, they should. It is NONE of his business to be involved in the MOST intimate act two human beings hold to be private!!!

      The Moose is trying to tell us (and our children) what we can eat and cannot eat while stuffing cheeseburgers into her ugly mouth.

      Now he wants to have a say-so in our sex lives? What an abomination to Freedom!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s