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
Kyle Wingfield
December 19th, 2012
6:01 pm
That last comment earned the Fresh Prince a trip to moderation.
And I don’t really understand why the accusations of who was burning crosses and when got started, but I’ve had enough of it. In fact, this might be a good night to shut it down until morning.
Dusty
December 19th, 2012
6:06 pm
Linda,
I agree with you that this blog has gone downhill. Liberals seem to think they can “make points” by attacking Kyle as “head” conservative here. There seems to be a league of liberal outcasts that change their Ids to make multiple ugly remarks. Whatever.
Kyle can’t be here all the time and they know it. He is also a firm believer in free speech. Some good thoughts arise but it surely could be a lot better without those hellbent on destroying the relevance here..
Dusty
December 19th, 2012
6:32 pm
I know this goes into moderation but tomorrow does come;
AmVet,
My second definition of democracy came from THE AMERICAN COLLEGE DICTIONARY published by Random House
——————————————-
MARK V
You said USA was not a direct democracy. Right. It is a democratic republic……uh huh..
As to my religion;, I’ll be thinking!! In the meantime, please read the New Testament as that will help you understand what you question.
So Good night and Good morning .and may we all be happy in the pleasure of (I hope) sunshine…
carlosgvv
December 19th, 2012
6:55 pm
Dusty – 4:53
Some people can be happy in their religion and feel their faith is a gift from God.
Others, like me, simply cannot give themselves to any religious faith without testable evidence that supports that faith.
It’s almost as though some people are just born to be religious and some aren’t.
Maybe it’s enviroment. Maybe it’s genetics.
I just don’t have any faith.
Smoke
December 19th, 2012
7:49 pm
100 browniepoints for religious liberity and another 100,000 women voters to leave the GOP. Already messing with SS. Next up, more voter suppression. 2014 is alreaady looking better for the Dems.
Dr in the house
December 19th, 2012
8:10 pm
This administration’s record has been to selectively enforce laws it likes and not those it does not agree with. Nice to see that even federal judges in a liberal district know enough to make the people do their job and not just say “don’t worry, we won’t do that”. Believing that is as stupid as a Speaker of the House saying you need to pass a bill to find out what’s in it
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 19th, 2012
8:17 pm
It’s beyond pathetic that folks can’t pay $9 a month for their own birth control.
One suspects it isn’t about birth control at all, but about jamming the religious.
Rightwing troll
December 19th, 2012
8:26 pm
Thank you Rafe for helping me to illustrate my point… With another whopper… Ya’ll just can’t control yourselves can you?
md
December 19th, 2012
8:31 pm
“Failing to provide contraceptives leads directly to the rise in abortions.”
That pretty much sums up the ideology to a tee, IF one is not GIVEN contraceptives (from others), then one is unable to make the choice to not have an abortion………
Thanks Finn for the update.
Just Saying..
December 19th, 2012
9:54 pm
Tentative is good. No, no, really, it’s fine. Seriously, it’s ok…
Patty
December 19th, 2012
9:54 pm
The cost of contraceptives would be a big deal if the price was out of reach for people. But when Target and Walmart are offering oral contraceptions for $9 a month? And what does a box of condoms go for–under $20? Or is it folks just want someone else to take responsibility for their actions?
Old Timer
December 19th, 2012
11:46 pm
Obama from one day to the next can’t remember what he said. Today he is working on gun control while up to now has ignored/denied that Fast & Furious which killed countless in Mexico and two boarder patrol agents existed and now failed to protect his ambasador. What a guy. Now wants to spend more with no bounds. He is looking out for you. Guess he auditioning to be in the movies when his term is up. He may get the Nixon dissease.
breckenridge
December 20th, 2012
12:03 am
This is a very straightforward issue – if a college or a hospital or any other type of organization that is religiously affiliated accepts ANY federal dollars then they do not have the right to set their own policies on birth control coverage. If they don’t accept federal dollars, or are willing to give up federal dollars (fat chane) then they can choose not to cover birth control.
Although I’m a pure fiscal conservative and a staunch advocate of forced population control (we should not allow anybody on any form of public assistance to have children under any circumstances) I’m willing to give on this in order to protect sanctity of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Unfortunately the religious right will never do the same and will continue their attempts to legislate a perverse interpretation of the Bible. Attempts that are entirely unconstitutional.
MarkV
December 20th, 2012
10:14 am
Dusty @ 6:32 pm
Dusty,
I wish you had told me what I questioned, and which is the appropriate part of the New Testament.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 20th, 2012
3:07 pm
Ray – A Sherman would not be the best option.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 20th, 2012
3:08 pm
Ray – A Sherman would not be the best option. Any government goon with his wits about him would throw a molotov co-cktail on it and would wait until you popped out of your hatch so he could shoot you with his………Bushmaster.
dabir dalton
December 22nd, 2012
8:56 am
Oh the irony of Christian Tyranny!
Kyle “Religious Liberty” cuts both ways and if Conservative Christians were truly concerned about religious liberty they wouldn’t spend so much time, energy and money trying to enforce their religious views on the rest of the country through the legislative process. Such as promoting prayer in schools and funneling public tax dollars earmarked for public schools to religious based charter schools.
Making their howls against making religious institutions and business owned by Christians to pay for contraceptives under Obama Care both ironic and hypocritical.