A tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit
A federal appeals court said Tuesday it will hold the Obama administration to its promises to change Obamacare’s controversial contraceptives mandate for certain religiously affiliated employers such as colleges. I guess the judges are now part of the “war on women.”
If so, they are joined by the Obama administration itself — which, as the court noted in its Tuesday order:
represented to the court that it would never enforce [the rule] in its current form against the appellants [Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College] or those similarly situated as regards contraceptive services. … There will, the government said, be a different rule for entities like the appellants …
But promises aren’t enough. The court said it took the administration’s pledge during oral arguments to create a different rule for the colleges and similar organizations to be “a binding commitment,” and it ordered the administration to provides updates about progress made toward the creation of the new rule every 60 days.
This ruling does not necessarily mean the administration will rewrite the rule completely to the liking of the colleges or other entities that view the mandate to subsidize contraceptives for their employees, in violation of their consciences, as an infringement on their religious liberty. Nor does it mean the colleges would necessarily prevail in the courts if they were to continue their lawsuits after the new rule is introduced.
But Tuesday’s ruling is important because the Obama administration is now legally obligated to follow through with its promise to rewrite the rule to accommodate religious liberty.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
217 comments Add your comment
Rightwing Troll
December 19th, 2012
1:55 pm
Tibs… I know about you than I wish to know, in no small part due to your own actions and shortcomings… I know you used to be part of the problem that you endlessly shriek and rail on about, and you believe yourself to have the only answers (which are the same old failed policies that you advocated previously) and you feel you and your ilks are the only solution, even though our current problems are as much you and yours responsibility, as it is me and mine.
You feelings towards me are duly noted and reciprocated in whole, your labels and sterotypes are outdated and don’t even begin to fit me, but you live up to every stereotype attributed to you and your ilks daily, no on a minute by minute basis here.
Please feel free to do the same. Until then I will continue to communicate with you and yours here in the same fashion that you choose to communicate with us.
Yours truly,
RWT
Kyle Wingfield
December 19th, 2012
1:55 pm
A lot of people today are missing the point of the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses. You’re free to disagree with others’ sense of morality or religious doctrine. But they have the same freedom, and are not obligated to let others’ demands infringe on their freedom.
Fwiw, I personally have no problem participating in an insurance program in which it might be said that my premium payments subsidize others’ contraceptives. As some of you have suggested, I find the use of contraceptives far, far preferable to abortions. But I do not believe others should be obligated by law to pay for my preferences, or anyone else’s preferences, in violation of their religious beliefs.
You Choose Your Beliefs, Now Live with the Consequences
December 19th, 2012
1:56 pm
The only religious freedom we need is the freedom to be left alone by religious people, the freedom to not be proselytized to, the freedom to have our government, laws, and legal policies left alone by the religious zealots who wish to force their dogma on everyone else. Any “religious institution” who doesn’t like the law has two choices, in my opinion: (1) give up your tax exempt status, or (2) be forced to pay the entire cost of raising any unwanted child (for their whole life) if the employer’s policy is not to pay for birth control.
Peadawg
December 19th, 2012
1:59 pm
“Shouldn’t be a problem for you to show us where I did that.”
1:34 – “free contraceptives”
Peadawg
December 19th, 2012
2:01 pm
“pay for my preferences”
You’re as dishonest as Lil Barry.
Lil' Barry Bailout -OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
2:02 pm
The argument was being made that women were being cheated by not covering their contraceptives, aqua girl. I merely showed that isn’t true, and that concerned progs could do something about the tragedy of moochers not being able to afford $1 for a condom without government mandates. Put your money where your mouths are, do-nothing Democrats.
Lil' Barry Bailout -OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
2:06 pm
Nice try Peadawg, but you lifted those words from a sentence suggesting a charity provide free contraceptives.
You’re pathetic.
Peadawg
December 19th, 2012
2:08 pm
“charity provide free contraceptives.” – Which has nothing to do with this since nobody has asked for free contraception. I would try to explain more but you wouldn’t understand.
Dusty
December 19th, 2012
2:11 pm
Well, there goes any chance of a decent discussion of religious liberty. Free speech applies to all;, even for the prejudiced, and they love to show their dirty laundry here.
Maybe a ban on the word “liar” might help. It seems to be a favorite. facsimile from rote and limited minds..
BenDaho
December 19th, 2012
2:16 pm
Any “religious institution” who doesn’t like the law has two choices, in my opinion: (1) give up your tax exempt status, or (2) be forced to pay the entire cost of raising any unwanted child (for their whole life) if the employer’s policy is not to pay for birth control.
Liberal logic: Let’s force someone else to bear the burden of loose morals and let the slut and baby daddy off the hook of responsibility. I’m not getting my way so everyone’s going to pay is what I’d expect from a 4 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 19th, 2012
2:16 pm
Unionized Teachers, So Vilified By the Right, Are the Heroes of Sandy Hook
~Daily Kos
ouch!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
2:18 pm
Progressives have perverted the first amendment to mean that it only protects atheists from the religious, certainly not the other way around.
JamVet
December 19th, 2012
2:18 pm
Peadawg, the man is hopeless. But usefu.
To that point, I have had an epiphany with the election on November 6th.
For forty years I have watched these frauds closely and they were able to act in the most irresponsible and disgusting ways possible with complete impunity. And I honestly wondered if there would ever be any consequences for them.
But thanks to the (W)orst Ever and the disease called neoconservatism, that has changed. And dramatically.
So now, I am a BIG fan of the rabid right wing.
Bring on more fascism! Bring on more in the War on Women! Bring on more Global Cooling!
And though I am a very patient man, I am more than ever, heartened by what I see in this country in the past six years. The writing is on the wall, but to the semi-literates in the hijacked and hemorrhaging GOP, it might as well be in Latin.
They will not evolve, so they will die.
And I will bide my time and watch and cheer…
Aquagirl
December 19th, 2012
2:19 pm
You’re free to disagree with others’ sense of morality or religious doctrine.
….sez the guy who made a lame response about my use of the KKK as an example. The KKK is entitled to Constitutional rights just the same as the Catholic Church. We don’t dole out rights based on whether we like a group or their beliefs.
Your personal worldview of a religion and who they exclude isn’t the deciding factor. This is a tough concept for white men, but Kyle, you’re gonna have to get used to it or face extinction.
If I can substitute “KKK” and “African-Americans” for “Wheaton College” and “women” you have no logical standing. It’s all about your feelings of what religion is OK and what type of discrimination is OK. So the Catholic Church excludes non-Catholics in secular jobs= Fine. KKK excludes non-members in secular jobs = OMG we’d never let that happen in America because they’re the KKK? That’s a moral point, not a legal one. In your America, the KKK could legally assert their right to toss out whoever they like, based on their religious beliefs.
P.S. your link is broken because the Becketfund account is suspended. Are they exercising their religious right to not pay bills?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
2:20 pm
Wow, the union apologists must really be desperate for a talking point after their Michigan beatdown.
President Romney
December 19th, 2012
2:27 pm
Kyle
If it is such a “religous liberty” issue then why no mention that the Catholic Church currently violates exactly what they and you are “defending”?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
2:27 pm
Aquagirl: That’s the issue here…a group of people is included in a benefit or service, and one part of the group is being denied access on account of their gender.
———————-
What are men getting that women aren’t?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
2:29 pm
If it is such a “religous liberty” issue then why no mention that the Catholic Church currently violates exactly what they and you are “defending”?
——————–
Perhaps because the suit wasn’t brought by the Catholic Church.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 19th, 2012
2:32 pm
protects atheists from the religious, certainly not the other way around
Ok, let’s try to find the logic in this gem. Is it that birth control is anti christian? It’s an atheist institution? LOL
Or, how about we try to figure out how the atheiests are pushing their beliefs and institutions onto christians….perhaps in some way similar to the opposite — like not being able to walk out of your house in December without getting inundated with some retail stuff designed to celebrate the birth its namesake. Or having to go to court so this cult can’t put one of it creeds (10 commandments) in our court rooms.
Matz
December 19th, 2012
2:32 pm
Mr. Winfield posits: “But I do not believe others should be obligated by law to pay for my preferences, or anyone else’s preferences, in violation of their religious beliefs.”
Awesome! So you’ll be joining the fight to get me a refund on my portion of tax dollars spent on the invasion and occupation of Iraq? SWEET! Furthermore, I don’t want to pay for the road in my community that my fat, self-indulgent, diabetic, half-a-colon neighbor uses to get her daily fix of dunkin’ donuts. Violating one’s bodily temple like that is totally against my religion!
/sarc
President Romney
December 19th, 2012
2:33 pm
And yes Kyle, via the examples I presented they are violating their own “principles” of “religious liberty”.
Again, they can do as they wish, but I will call them and whomever out on this issue when all fats are not presented because of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
iggy
December 19th, 2012
2:33 pm
From the day he was born Obama has had a problem with honesty.
President Romney
December 19th, 2012
2:34 pm
Facts
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 19th, 2012
2:34 pm
The Cons would prefer that the teachers had abandoned the kids and jumped out any available window – whatever it took to look out for numero uno.
At least that is the Con modus operandi.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 19th, 2012
2:35 pm
From the day he was born iggy has had a problem with honesty.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
2:38 pm
Finn: how about we try to figure out how the atheiests are pushing their beliefs and institutions onto christians
———————-
They aren’t. How could they? They don’t have any religious beliefs.
What atheists are doing (not all of them, just the angry, hate-filled ones) is to prevent the faithful from practicing their religions.
President Romney
December 19th, 2012
2:39 pm
Wheaton College? No
Lawsuits from Catholic Church and affiliated orgs over same issue? Yes
What else can I assist you with today
President Romney
December 19th, 2012
2:44 pm
Barry
With no mandate from DC, how are “those faithful practicing their religion” at Georgetown? By offering birth control coverage?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
2:46 pm
Clarify your question, PresRo.
Speaker of the House Nasty Pelosi
December 19th, 2012
2:54 pm
Does anyone else think JammiesWet just might be a stark raving lunatic?
I’ll bet there’s a lot of mumbling going on in that basement.
Black Label
December 19th, 2012
2:54 pm
When I say DC. I mean the city not the Feds. My bad on that lack of clarity.
Crying about “religious liberty” while you are already providing coverage via certain orgs under your umbrella is nothing but a political ploy.
Their right to take whatever legal action that they are able to pursue, but the hypocrisy rains down like electoral votes rained down on me last month.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
December 19th, 2012
2:55 pm
Nice try, Aquagirl, but fail.
The KKK isn’t a religious organization, so the do not have constitutional protections in this regard.
You’d know that if you ever bothered to read that document.
BenDaho
December 19th, 2012
2:59 pm
Speaker of the House Nasty Pelosi
December 19th, 2012
2:54 pm
Does anyone else think JammiesWet just might be a stark raving lunatic?
I’ll bet there’s a lot of mumbling going on in that basement.
Me thinks RamWet thinks a conservative tinkled in his fruit loops or poked a hole in one of his condoms…
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
3:01 pm
Looks like “Black Label” forgot to switch his sockpuppet back to “President Romney”.
Oopsies!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 19th, 2012
3:10 pm
As some of you have suggested, I find the use of contraceptives far, far preferable to abortions. But I do not believe others should be obligated by law to pay for my preferences, or anyone else’s preferences, in violation of their religious beliefs.
Kyle I think we are pretty close on this one.
Which is saying something.
Very glad to see your position on contraceptives.
Its maddening to me that Evangelicals oppose birth control but at the same time oppose abortions. That just makes zero sense.
You can blah blah about personal responsibility all you want.
Me I’m realistic and a bit more pragmatic.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 19th, 2012
3:13 pm
Crying about “religious liberty” while you are already providing coverage via certain orgs under your umbrella is nothing but a political ploy.
Absolutely correct.
In fact ill bet 5 bucks the ones who have an issue with it are the more conservative types who have a problem with Obamacare as a whole.
They are going to use this as a wedge.
The more liberal members of the Catholic church on the other hand problem dont have near the problem with it.
St Simons
December 19th, 2012
3:13 pm
My religion doesn’t believe in cancer, so none of
my 20 employees will be covered.
They should just pray it away.
Dusty
December 19th, 2012
3:15 pm
Folks,
Did you know it is Christmas, the seaon of peace and love? That you can celebrate whether you are religious or not? That people love Christmas because they can behave with love and goodness without having to explain?
This blog has lost its meaning because there is no love or understanding. It presents the great insecurities of those who cannot celebrate at any time and resent the presence of love and liberty.
Kyle gave us a subject to make us think and investigate. It has been turned into a cesspool. There’s no excuse for such behavior. None.
carlosgvv
December 19th, 2012
3:18 pm
If the Catholics, and all other Christians, would just submit testable evidence that would support their religious beliefs, I would not mind them having so much influence on healthcare and others matters of interest.
As it is, all they have is blind faith, and it’s very difficult in this age of science and technology to understand why myths still govern so much of our political and social behavior.
Del
December 19th, 2012
3:20 pm
“ts maddening to me that Evangelicals oppose birth control but at the same time oppose abortions. That just makes zero sense”
Cheesy, It’s the Roman Catholic church that opposes birth control.
Lil' Barry Bailout -OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
3:24 pm
Religion has no influence on healthcare, carlosgvv. If you want some healthcare, no religion can stop you from getting it. They might, however, object to your demand that they be required to pay for it.
Lil' Barry Bailout -OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
3:26 pm
“ts maddening to me that Evangelicals oppose birth control but at the same time oppose abortions. That just makes zero sense”
——–
It makes perfect sense to someone who believes both are wrong.
Duh.
Del
December 19th, 2012
3:26 pm
carlos,
All you have is your blind faith that there isn’t a God the Father and creator.
CC
December 19th, 2012
3:28 pm
“Me thinks RamWet thinks a conservative tinkled in his fruit loops or poked a hole in one of his condoms…”
WRONG!
Why on earth would you think JamVet would even NEED a condom?
CC
December 19th, 2012
3:32 pm
“If the Catholics, and all other Christians, would just submit testable evidence that would support their religious beliefs, I would not mind them having so much influence on healthcare and others matters of interest.”
Why don’t we begin with you submitting evidence that there is no God?
“all they have is blind faith”
All you have is “blind faith” that there isn’t a God. I’d much rather be in my position than yours.
BenDaho
December 19th, 2012
3:37 pm
CC
December 19th, 2012
3:28 pm
“Me thinks RamWet thinks a conservative tinkled in his fruit loops or poked a hole in one of his condoms…”
WRONG!
Why on earth would you think JamVet would even NEED a condom?
You got me. He’d probably find a way to hate that too…
MarkV
December 19th, 2012
3:38 pm
The whole issue is a huge hypocrisy on the part of the Catholic church, and inconsistency on the part of Kyle.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Exercise means “putting into action.” How does paying for health care, which includes contraceptives for some employees of church-affiliated institutions, prohibits anybody else to exercise of religion? It is against their faith that they are paying for something they consider a sin? Then what about the money they pay in wages, which can be used to commit sins? Are they going to demand next that the employees will swear they will not use that money for anything sinful?
No constitutional right is absolute, and certainly not the free exercise of religion clause, if that exercise violates another important law. Why should this very tenuous issue of faith have precedence over a federal law?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
3:39 pm
I’d like to see someone provide “testable evidence” that Obozo isn’t incompetent.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
3:40 pm
MarkV: Exercise means “putting into action.”
——————-
What does “free” mean?
CC
December 19th, 2012
3:44 pm
LBB:
I assure you that JamVet knows what “free” means. He is a huge advocate of “free”!