?Plaintiff?s challenge to the preventive services coverage regulations is not fit for judicial review because defendants [Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] have indicated that they will propose and finalize changes to the regulations that are intended to accommodate plaintiff?s religious objections to providing contraception coverage,? the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in its brief to the Washington, D.C. District Court.
Obama officials claim the mandate does not put forth any ?immediate injury? to religious groups.
Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic university, says he thinks the Obama administrations argument will not stand up in court.
?It doesn?t argue that the mandate is legal; it doesn?t argue that the mandate is constitutional,? Goodrich said. ?Instead, it begs the court to ignore the lawsuit because the government plans to change the mandate at some unspecified date in the future.?
?Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,? said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty ?Its only hope is to ask the court to look the other way based on an empty promise to possibly change the rules in the future.?
In other words, because there is nobody being injured by it, there is no case to be brought. Plaintiffs jumped the gun and tried to sue without actually having suffered an injury. Without having suffered an injury, plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit, and the case must be dismissed.
This is why all those stupid laws about not being allowed to carry ice cream cones in back pockets or requiring someone to walk in front of your vehicle carrying a red flag are still on the books. They are never enforced, so nobody is ever injured by them, so their validity is never judged in court.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
It's about the basics of freedom. Every time the government makes a mandate without being severely challenged the line in the sand moves a bit away from freedom. The Southern Baptists rightly recognize this as the camel getting its head into the tent.
Quote:
WASHINGTON (February 9, 2012)--Southern Baptist leader the Rev. Richard Land says the nation's largest Protestant group stands "100 percent" with Roman Catholic bishops in opposing the Obama administration's contraceptive coverage mandate.
Land, who heads the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, says President Barack Obama should not be ordering church-affiliated institutions to ignore their consciences and pay for treatments they consider "unconscionable."
He?s urging Congress to outlaw such mandates, because Mr. Obama could withdraw them under election-year pressure, only to re-impose them if he's re-elected in November.
"Once they no longer have to face the voters again,
Lord knows what they'll get up to. So we want legislation that will protect us by the force of law from this kind of intrusion on the consciences of American citizens,? he said.
It's about the basics of freedom. Every time the government makes a mandate without being severely challenged the line in the sand moves a bit away from freedom. The Southern Baptists rightly recognize this as the camel getting its head into the tent.
The bigger threat to freedom is the religious mandate you're asking for, the mandate of giving employers the right to make medical coverage and care decisions for their employees, simply because he's not happy with how they might choose to treat themselves. Employers should not have that right; those decisions should be left to the patient, the medical professional, and the family of the patient.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The bigger threat to freedom is the religious mandate you're asking for, the mandate of giving employers the right to make medical coverage and care decisions for their employees, simply because he's not happy with how they might choose to treat themselves. Employers should not have that right; those decisions should be left to the patient, the medical professional, and the family of the patient.
Government mandates are a threat to individual freedom.
Those that seek integrity in their investments would certainly balk at insurance that supports abortifacients.
Quote:
Integrity Investors, LLC is a registered investment advisory established to provide investment services to individuals who desire to incorporate the morals of their faith into all aspects of their life including their investments.
We at Integrity Investors believe your money can work towards achieving your personal financial objectives such as creating a secure and comfortable future for yourself, caring for and educating your family, and any other important financial objectives you may have while purposely using only investment products that are in alignment with your beliefs. A faith based approach to investing helps your money work towards both tasks without compromise.
Investing with Integrity is a choice. God gives us each a free will to choose how we spend our money and how we invest. You may already be a person of moral integrity in so many aspects of your life, actively exercising your faith through your prayers or your personal involvement in outreaches, helping the poor, feeding the hungry, filtering your internet, not spending your money on products or services you find offensive. After exploring our website I hope you will agree that the same integrity can be brought to your investments.
Linear Mode
