A federal judge has dismissed a federal lawsuit in which Nebraska and six other states tried to block part of the federal health care law that requires contraception coverage.
U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom of Lincoln dismissed the case Tuesday, saying the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the action challenging part of the Affordable Care Act.
“Today’s decision completely disregards the federal government’s continued shell game when it comes to this rule,” said Attorney General Jon Bruning. “Essentially, this decision asks millions of Americans to watch and wait for their religious liberties to be violated. Obviously, we’re disappointed with the ruling, and we will consult with our co-plaintiffs to assess our next steps.”
The attorneys general for Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas joined Bruning's challenge of the contraception rule. All are Republican.
The ACA was one of the cornerstones of Democratic President Barack Obama's 2008 election campaign. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of the provisions of the law.
Plaintiffs also included three Nebraska-based groups -- Catholic Social Services, Pius X High School and the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America -- along with a nun and a female missionary.
The lawsuit challenged a rule that requires contraception coverage in health care plans -- including for employees of church-affiliated hospitals, schools and outreach programs. It argued that the rule violates the rights of employers that object to the use of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.
Urbom sided with the U.S. Justice Department, which argued that the plaintiffs did not show that they faced the immediate threat of having to offer the coverage, because the federal government delayed enforcement of the rule until August 2013. That so-called "safe harbor" provision is to allow accommodations to be worked out for some religious groups.
More good news for the Obama administration.
Let me also take a moment to remind everybody that the SOLE reason that this case was brought before the judge was due to the fact that the Catholic church fears admitting that the Pope is NOT infallible. Once you understand that you can then become angry that our tax dollars are being wasted in legal maneuvers designed to eventually allow these organizations to restrict their female employees access to contraception based on their so-called "faith."
Thanks Gryphen for this post. Their actions remind me why I dropped out of the Catholic church (in my heart, mind and core of my being at a young age). Yet it was more b.s. of my teens that pushed me out of that church.
ReplyDeleteThe book, The Agony and the Ecstasy, helped me understand that the popes were not infallible. They were greedy, worldly men who acted for themselves. To make themselves rich. To do anything for power and control.
As an ex-Catholic, I have no respect for that institution. However, without experience of all of it other than my trying Unitarianism and the Episcopal Church, I also don't admire Protestants (nor most other religions) when it comes to some of them fleecing people with their scams, cons, frauds, etc.
Sorry churches ! Your liberties are not being violated. You are still at liberty to believe exactly what you want. However, you are not at liberty to keep women who want birth control from obtaining it.
ReplyDeleteNo one is forcing anyone to use birth control...but I bet, if people were honest, most of the parishoners would be on some type of birth control otherwise we would all have families the size of the Dugger clan. Religions are mans attempt to control others through fear and ignorance.
ReplyDeleteThe "others" being subjugation of women, of course, at least the way things are these days.
DeleteMore wasted taxpayer money bringing these frivolous lawsuits from these 7 states just like voting 33 times to repeal ACA. Such a waste of taxpayer money!
ReplyDeleteI simply do not understand why some Catholics and others feel as if the personal business of non-Catholics and nonbelievers should be their concern.
ReplyDeleteIf their personal faith is anti-abortion or anti-contraception, they themselves should not take the pill and should not get an abortion. Period. End of story.
However, they do not have the right to force non-believers (either nonbelievers in the sense of other faiths or no faith) to conform to their their personal faith. That is un-American and un-Constitutional.
They have the right to follow their own conscience as long as it does not infringe or coerce anyone else to conform to their personal faith. We are a diverse nation.
These folks are amongst the first to use the Call to Freedom and the first to try to deny freedom of conscience to others. Apparently, freedom is only for them and those of their faith.
Beware of Romney. He is bound by a very consuming church that dictates not only how much they must donate to the church, but also their diet and what their underwear must be like and countless others. It is an evangelical faith meaning they are intent upon conversion of everyone to their faith as evidenced not only by their missionaries on our streets and overseas, but also by the evidence of baptizing the dead into their faith.
Do you really want to be forced to conform to Romney's faith standards or do you want to follow your own or none at all? Do you want someone telling you how and when you can have sex, how many children you can have, and what healthcare you can or cannot have? If not, vote Democratic.
Look to see who is trying to force their religious beliefs on you - Catholic or Mormon. Look to see which party they support - it is almost always the GOP or GOTP.
This whole issue is absolute nonsense. "Death panels" didn't work so why not try an even crazier idea. No one is required to use contraceptives by the ACA but insurance companies must provide coverage for those who CHOOSE to use it. From the minute the idiots brought this up it has been only worthy of head banging on the wall! Anything to obstruct. It's bad enough when it's done by the Republicans but for the Catholic Church to involve itself in a matter like this . . . . I think the Catholic Church should lose its tax exempt status right now; in fact the Church should forfeit it.
ReplyDelete"One step forward, two steps back..." nevertheless, this is good news. For the moment. We can only hope the judges in the other states have the same mindset and there can be forward motion. The problem is that these State Attorneys will not let this stand, but take it all the way up to SCOTUS, where it probably will die at the hands of the religious reactionaries on the court.
ReplyDeleteMay I be wrong fromthediagonal
The state of Indiana gives vouchers to certian parents, who then use those vouchers to send their kids to an approved list of schools, in my area ALL religious. The state has argued that it is Constitutional, as it is the parents spending the cash, not the state to support religious schools - which would be a clear violation.
ReplyDeleteSo why can an employer who offers insurance coverage as part of the employees benefits package - just like compensation, direct how that compensation gets spent - what's next, back to being paid in scrip to shop only at the company store?
The RCC and others will simply have to wait until the CA kicks in, not offer coverage and pay for their employees to get coverage in the state pool - of course, they will have to offer pay which sufficiently covers these costs for the employee and family - yes it really is abotu money.
Things I learned today:
ReplyDeletePopes have been considered infallible ONLY since the First Vatican Council of 1870.
The Pope is only infallible when he, in union with the body of bishops, solemnly teaches that a doctrine as true. At all other times the Pope can be just as wrong or sinful as you and me.
-Another ex-Catholic
doG love Michigan. 60 years behind the times, and proud of it. Yah, shur, ya betcha.
ReplyDeleteWe need to all use the message that all these so called politicians and Corp and so called religions want is women and lots of children to abuse. They have no respect for women, or live children. Look at the story right above about the guy in Utah who says he's a personal friend of Mitts and other Repb's. Raped 5 women we know of. Does anyone really believe child abuse or child sex rings will not get even more rapent with every pregnancy going to term? These Corp make money on anything , will jump right in there to make money off of children. Where is the outrage against Mitt one of his co's used aborted fetus's to make profit. One of his Co's for teen health - seems like they had more than adverage deaths there but their bottom line was profit. It's not unrealistic to conclude that the end game is getting children for labor, Because they sure arn't making jobs. Their aggenda is to get cheep labor by making women bear every child she can possibly have. If there are no safty nets, no good paying jobs to support children, Guess what ? Corporations just happen to be able to trainchildren for jobs anywhere in the world- You betcha
ReplyDeleteI think the snipe at the Pope was a stretch given your topic, but WOO HOO on the rest. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Pope is infallible, but that was an odd comment. There have been a number of evil Popes, but I do think Pope John Paul XXlll was truly inspired. No, I'm not Catholic.
ReplyDeleteSandra Fluke had it exactly right about this assault on women. She is worth following on Twitter.
I personally don't know of any Catholics who don't practice birth control. In fact, I know this because they tell me they don't know any either.
ReplyDeleteDamn,I wish I had worn that bra a few more years.Now I have gravity to contend with.
ReplyDeleteI will never forget being a 17 year old standing on the side of the rode in 1972 changing a tire on an old pickup truck for an elderly gentleman who was too frail.A car load of young men flew by shouting "Yeah womens Lib".I didn't even know I was a Libber until then.
A question for the baggers who feel that their religious freedom is being violated: There are Many Jehovah's Witnesses who run small businesses. Should they be able to tell their employees that they would not cover blood transfusions if they needed surgery?
ReplyDeleteNo, I didn't think so. And those Witnesses wouldn't even push such an issue because what you do, is your choice.
See, how simple it is?
Thanks Patti@9:24, point well taken!
Deletefromthediagonal
Lynne, I hope you took that as a compliment!
ReplyDeleteI would, and I have... (and no, I did did not have to burn my bra, I never wore one except when nursing...)
anon@8:23, I agree gravity takes its toll, but being from the "flat country" as they used to say in German, I still have no regrets about refusing to be trussed up all these many years ago
Guess that's one pf those reasons why I write fromthediagonal
I took the pill for over 15 years due to endometriosis. I didn't need it for birth control as hubby had a vasectomy after second child. I needed it because without it, I bled to the point of needing iron and blood products nearly every month. I started at the age of 35 so I felt I was too young for a hysterectomy.
ReplyDeleteMy feeling on this is such, if my DOCTOR prescribes a legal medication, it should be covered just like any other prescription is. I pay my premiums, I should have all my prescribed medications covered equally.
It's no one else's business what medication my doctor feels I need for my health and well being. If some prescriptions can't be covered due to someone else's religious beliefs, then no prescriptions should be covered period.
Your religious freedom and liberty do not extend to denying me medical care no matter how loud you scream about it.
The judge made a wise ruling. This whole "religious freedom" is just whack. It's a war on Women under the guise of "religious freedom", if the religion wanting freedom wasn't "Christian" (As in building a Mosque), then "religious freedom" goes out the window, and "Radical Terrorism" gets put in it's place.
ReplyDeleteThey're perfectly fine with their "religious" tax dollars going to fight wars, but dog forbid a woman prevents a pregnancy, listens to her doctor, or take the pill for off label purposes.