The following comes from a Sept. 10 posting on the ScotusBlog.
A constitutional challenge to a key part of the new federal health care law that the Supreme Court did not examine in 2012 is back in an expanded form, and the part of that law that the Court did uphold is being tested with new arguments. A new case also seeks, by a sideways maneuver, to be the first to put before the Court a test of the new birth control mandate in the law.
The Court has not yet considered any of the sequels that have been developing in the wake of its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, so the new petition in Liberty University v. Lew (docket 13-306) will provide the first chance. The petition was filed on September 5. The Obama administration response is now due on October 9, but that deadline could be extended.
The new case poses a challenge, based on a variety of constitutional arguments, to the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employers provide a minimum level of health insurance for their workers, or pay a federal penalty. In 2012, the Court opted not to hear any challenge to that provision. But Liberty University and two women challengers are also making religious freedom arguments against the individual insurance mandate that the Justices had upheld Term before last — arguments that were not before the Court then.
Liberty University’s lawyers had attempted to get their case before the Court previously, but the Court opted to hear and decide other petitions. At the university’s request, the Court cleared the way for the Fourth Circuit Court, based in Richmond, Virginia, to take a new look at the university’s challenge. That led to a new three-judge panel’s ruling last July, either rejecting all of the constitutional arguments or refusing to hear them.
In particular, the Circuit Court refused to rule on the validity of the birth control mandate — a provision that is being attacked in more than sixty lawsuits across the country. Petitions growing directly out of that series of cases are expected to reach the Court soon, perhaps later this month.
Undaunted by the Circuit Court’s refusal to rule on the contraceptive mandate, Liberty University and the two women in the case have asked the Court to rule on it anyway, based on an argument that courts are supposed to review laws in the form that they existed at the time of the review. The contraceptive mandate regulations were adopted by the Obama administration, to implement that part of the law, after Liberty’s case was developing in the courts….
The Supreme Court will not examine the new petition until after the Obama administration has had a chance to file a formal response. The Court has the discretion of granting or denying review.
To read the entire posting, click here.
It matters little if Liberty U or any other institution succeeds in carving out an exemption from the HHS mandate if the remainder of the “Affordable Health Care Act” remains intact. The entire law will result in a disaster. Obama clearly lied when he said that “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it”. His ultimate objective is now crystal clear: A government controlled bureaucracy with a single payer system which will slowly snuff out all private insurance companies. It will be enforced by the tender mercies of the IRS. Universal health care has long been the goal of the socialist (aka democrat) party. It is strongly supported by the USCCB (minus abortion, etc.) and the Catholic Hospital Association, whose head, Sister Carol Keehan was present at the signing of the bill by Pres. Obama. Were it not for a few nagging little details like population control methods unacceptable to the church, Obamacare would be welcomed with open arms by our bishops.
Paying for abortion now, euthanasia next.
I agree totally with Mr. Seidl’s remarks. Single-payer has been Obama’s goal from the beginning, just as it was Clinton’s in the early days of his administration. The majority of bishops don’t seem to have a big problem with a corrupt federal government taking charge of our personal health care and one-sixth of the economy along with it. So much for the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.
Ret hot liberals, whether they be in politics or religion, have only one goal in mind: Destroy the Catholic Church.. Our Lord said the gates of hell would not prevail against her, but Satan and his stooges will not cease doing battle with her until the end of the world. The way things are going, will there be only a ‘remnant ‘ left when Christ comes again in His glory? Scripture seems to think so, as the Catholic Church we knew and grew up in, is quickly being destroyed from the inside. Unfortunately, She is to blame for most of the immoral evils which are so common today because of NOT teaching the truth! Over 50% of Catholics re-elected Obama, and hardly a word was spoken against him. Now the bishops are trying to get the government to be nice to illegal immigrants. No wonder what few words the bishops utter are treated as dross.
“Father Karl” is correct (again)! The tragic fact is that Obama was elected, in effect, by the Catholic vote. And, this vote was aided and abetted by Catholic bishops (who now have the sympathetic Francis as Pope — and who has said very little on abortion). Moreover, the Obama Administration will likely ignore whatever the Supreme Court says, in its future rulemakings. It is not hard to do this, by simply redirecting a few policies, the Administration can have others chasing their tails in more litigation for decades. Bishops, too, are purposefully using their (our) resources to chase the tail of “social justice” issues, using up all the air in the room, while ignoring what they are hear for — to teach and lead their flocks to salvation. This latter point, in all the scandal that has rocked the Church, is the most disheartening. Bishops like Bishop Blaire (Stockton) spend endless hours, and resources, to advance economic and social issues (and to tend with the vexing issue of how to pay for all the damage caused largely to altar boys by the homosexual clergy that now controls much of the Church). Of course, these wonderful bishops do protect us from one thing: re-learning more about Catholic Tradition and experiencing the special graces that come from the sacraments “in the extraordinary form.” But, these thoughts are from a “Triumphalist” so beware!!
So much for conscience clauses and other experiences of Catholic religious liberty. We must pray, and act, for our values.