Democrats insisted that business owners not only had to provide insurance (or get fined) but that the insurance had to cover contraception and abortion (day after) pills, even after Bart Stupak voted yes! claiming…”There will be no public funding for abortion in this legislation. We’ve all stood on principle.” That would be the principle of believe the lie to get them to leave you alone, or if you are the other side, lie until you get what you want.
The Federal Department of Health and (in)Human services has since dutifully complied and made “The Mandate” part and parcel with the Patient Affordable are Act. So when a business owner in Missouri filed a suit claiming that the mandate violated his religious rights the court had to answer the question–can the government make laws that force you to act in direct contradiction to your religious beliefs under threat of penalty?
The obvious constitutional answer is no, but if politicians started listening for the obvious answer (or to the constitution) we’d all need a new hobby because there would be next to nothing to blog about.
The order, issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, puts the HHS mandate on hold pending the outcome of the appeals process, prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from requiring the business owner, who contends the mandate violates his constitutionally-protected religious beliefs, to comply with the mandate which requires employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.
With the abortion and contraception mandates tied directly together the mandate to buy insurance becomes awkward without changes should the appeal stand up.
“The order sends a message that the religious beliefs of employers must be respected by the government. We have argued from the beginning that employers like Frank O’Brien must be able to operate their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, not the values of the government. We look forward to this case moving forward and securing the constitutional rights of our client.”(emphasis mine)
H/T- Daily Calle
This is a circumstance where the state is not just trying to force it’s values on people, it is demanding that they pay for the pleasure as well, under threat of force–fines, or potentially incarceration. And it is not as if allowing them an exemption prohibits anyone else from ‘expressing’ their values in favor of the mandate. This is as clear cut a violation as there can be, complete with the full court press from the left–was contraception not a centerpiece of their victorious 2012 campaign? (How we should weep for the nation.)
There are other cases like this across the country, I mentioned the one brought by Liberty University last week, and they are all coming up as we move into next year. The momentum is on the side of the First Amendment where it should be. Whether that leads to a just decision in favor of basic religious freedom remains to be seen.
If they stand on the same principles as Bart Stupak we’re all screwed. There’s no ‘Day After’ pill to abort that.
Source Hot Air