Another OBAMACARE PROVISION: "FORCED" HOME INSPECTIONS

BenSwann: “Clearly, any family may be visited by federally paid agents for almost any reason.”; According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.

The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:

• Families where mom is not yet 21.
• Families where someone is a tobacco user.
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”;

In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.” Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.”;

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,

“This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

Although the Obama administration would claim the provision applies only to Medicaid families, the new statute, by its own definition, has no such limitation. Intervention may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”;

Part of the program will require massive data collecting of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

A manual called Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention includes firearms as potential safety hazard  and will require inspectors to verify safety compliance and record each inspection into a database.

Last session South Carolina Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a bill, H.3101 that would nullify certain provisions of Obamacare. The bill would give the state attorney general the authority to authorize law enforcement to arrest federal agents for trespassing. It would make forced home inspections under Obamacare illegal in South Carolina. It passed in the House but died in the senate.

Kent Brown and Rep. Rick Quinn discuss “forced” home inspections under Obamacare in the video below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsTUKf87OSw]

VIDEO: OBAMACARE PROVISION: "FORCED" HOME INSPECTIONS

Related:

Premiums Skyrocket 198%: Congress Exempts Themselves From Obamacare Provisions

Toddler Dies In State Custody After Being Taken From Parents 

Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana Flee Obamacare Exchanges

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) Calls On GOP To Defund Healthcare Law (ObamaCare) At Any Cost 

Defunding Obamacare Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio Engage in a Colloquy, Plus Paul and Palin

Obama, Democrats Promised "Death Panels" Would Not Exist In Obamacare – Sarah Palin on Hannity 

Frightening ObamaCare Diktat – a Huge HHS Data Base For Federally Funded ‘Community Organizers’ 

House Launches Investigation Into Obama’s Blatant Political and Illegal Delay of ObamaCare 

Fifty Eight Percent of Americans Now Want ObamaCare Repealed Completely 

McCaughey: Obamacare is About Funding Democrats

Americans petition Congress to Defund Obamacare

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare surprises,ObamaCare mandates,Big Brother,watch the other had,ACA,Affordable Care Act,Bill of Rights,individual rights,defund ObamaCare,healthcare,HHS,HHS Mandate

RUSH: Palin Was Right - There Are Indeed Death Panels In ObamaCare (audio)

Audio: RUSH: Sarah Palin Was Right 'There Are Indeed Death Panels In ObamaCare' 

Former governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is blasting HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for becoming a one-woman death panel. Sebelius is denying a young girl a lifesaving lung transplant — forcing the girl’s family to look to the courts for help.

Palin blasted Sebelius on Twitter and Facebook.

In her Facebook post, Palin said recalled how much criticism she received for decrying “death panels” in Obamacare:

The government will bend the rules left and right to harass targeted taxpayers, conservative patriots, selected journalists, etc., but it will strictly exercise inconsistent and subjective rules to deny a child a shot at life. And they called us liars when we spoke of “death panels” – faceless bureaucrats coming between you and your doctor to make life and death decisions about a loved one’s survival. It doesn’t sound so far fetched anymore, does it?

A federal judge has intervened to give hope to a young girl who needs a lung transplant as doctors have only given her weeks to live. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius received national condemnation after she refused to get involved to help the girl.

Sarah Murnaghan has been hospitalized for three months with end-stage cystic fibrosis. She is not giving up hope. She wants to be a singer, but needs a lung transplant to live. Her parents have been with her constantly while she waits at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Sarah’s parents asked a federal judge to intervene and order the Obama administration to alter longstanding organ-donation rules so she can get the lung transplant she desperately needs. A report shows the judge has given them hope that she can be put on the adult list.

*Unfortunately because of the delays the dying girl's condition worsens as she awaits lung transplant

**Since this was originally written, the same judge has acted on behalf of a second girl in the same hospital also needing a lung transplant has sued and has been added to the list.

Death Panel a la Sebelius… “Some people live. Some people die.”

Related… Who is HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius?:

Sebelius’ Controversial Fundraising Efforts Raise Concerns, Allegedly Chase Away Potential Donors 

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate 

Comments More Print Reprints About the Obamacare ‘train wreck’ 

Sebelius Spends Your Taxes On Community Organizations 

Obamacare Architects Rockefeller and Sebelius: Our Bill is Confusing Beyond Comprehension 

ObamaCare: 1,000+ Pages of Socialized Health-Care Rules? Obama’s Private Army? And the Road to Socialism Through Health-Care By Reagan

*Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin on the abortion mandates within ObamaCare. (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.) 

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule 

Death Panels are HERE

Technorati Tags: death panels,ObamaCare,Sarah Palin,Palin,Rush Limbaugh,wake-up America,stand-up America,Kathleen Sebelius

Death Panel a la Sebelius… “Some people live. Some people die.”

Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, says she doesn’t want to intervene in transplant decisions about a dying Pennsylvania girl when other children are just as sick.

10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan has been hospitalized for three months with end-stage cystic fibrosis.

Sarah Murnaghan (Photo: Change.org)

Doctors say the girl needs an adult lung transplant (because pediatric lungs are so rare). They are confident that she would survive the procedure, but they say she has only three to five weeks to live.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that current federal regulations prohibit doctors from performing the expedited procedure. So Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) on Tuesday went directly to the HHS Secretary herself.

“Please, suspend the rules until we look at this policy,” Rep. Barletta begged Sebelius during a House hearing.

“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” she replied.

“The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule — and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different than other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances],” she added.

The Pennsylvania congressman responded by pointing out that the girl only has three to five weeks to live.

Sebelius would only say that there are currently 40 other people in Pennsylvania who are on the “highest acuity list” for lung transplants, adding that medical experts should make those decisions.

But relatives of young Sarah say they want the policy changed for all children awaiting a lung transplant, not just Sarah.

Sarah’s aunt Sharon Ruddock says older children should be eligible for adult lungs because so few pediatric lungs are available.

She says that would add just 20 children to the 1,600 people on the adult waiting list.

Sebelius has called for a review of transplant policies, but the Murnaghans says Sarah doesn’t have time for that.

Update: Court Orders Sebelius to Suspend Death Panel – Place Dying 10 Year-Old Girl on Transplant List

The Politico reported:

A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list. Normally federal policy prevents children younger than 12 from receiving donated adult lungs, but Sebelius has been under pressure to change the policy.

The parents of the girl asked the judge on Wednesday to order Sebelius to alter organ donation rules so that the dying child has a better chance of receiving new lungs. They say she is running out of time. U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson granted a temporary restraining order to exempt Murnaghan from the current policy, and there will be a hearing on June 14.

Sebelius has come under intense pressure in this case, which is receiving media and online attention. Some medical ethicists, however, say that while the organ allocation policy may well need to be reviewed and changed, they worry about making case-by-case decisions based in part on emotional media attention.

Video: Dr. Manny: Sebelius hiding behind bureaucratic rules

Technorati Tags: death panels,Kathleen Sebelius,connect the dots,ObamaCare,Obamaland,you be the judge,lack of moral conviction,Pennsylvania,cystic fibrosis

Comments More Print Reprints About the Obamacare ‘train wreck’

WAPO: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday. The moment that made headlines was when Sen. Max Baucus, the key author of the health-care law, fretted that the rollout would be “a huge train wreck.”

We’ll get to that in a minute. But the entire testimony is worth watching as a particularly clear — and occasionally amusing — look at the dynamics surrounding the health-care law.

Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
(Jeff Martin/For The Washington Post)

The testimony begins with Baucus leaving the room to take a phone call. So Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the committee, gets the first question.

Secretary Sebelius, I am curious as to how your department is funding overall efforts under the health law now that much of the initial funding has been depleted. A quick review of the HHS budget in brief seems to suggest that you are diverting funds from other areas of the department to put toward implementation. Some estimates estimate as much as a half billion dollars might be moved from other portions of the budget.

Would you describe the authority under which you believe you have the ability to conduct such transfers and whether or not you believe the Congress should be notified when these transfers occur?

Let me translate. Republicans have repeatedly refused to appropriate the money required to implement the Affordable Care Act. So, as a stopgap, Sebelius has moved money around from elsewhere in her department to try and fund the effort. Now Hatch is attacking whether that’s even legal to do. Here’s Sebelius:

Senator, we did a request additional funding with the continuing resolution in 2013 and were not given additional resources by the United States Congress, although we have the duty to implement the law. So I have, for 2013, used both my transfer authority, which is statutorily in our budget, as well as the nonrecurring expense fund for one-time I.T. costs and a portion of funding for the prevention fund to use for outreach and education.

You heard Chairman Baucus describe the level of concern and questions in states around the country, and we want to make sure that Americans fully understand the benefits that are coming their way and the decisions that they can make. We have requested in the budget that’s before you, in the 2014 budget, an additional $1.5 billion to fully implement the Affordable Care Act.

Hatch proceeds to drop this line of questioning entirely, moving on to a question about Medicaid.

Insofar as the Republican Party has a strategy on Obamacare, it’s goes like this: The law needs to be implemented. The GOP can try and keep the implementation from being done effectively, in part by refusing to authorize the needed funds. Then they can capitalize on the problems they create to weaken the law, or at least weaken Democrats up for reelection in 2014.

In other words, step one: Create problems for Obamacare. Step two: Blame Obamacare for the problems. Step 3: Political profit!

It’s also key context to understanding Sebelius’s now-famous exchange with Baucus. His question is about outreach, which of course costs money:

BAUCUS: When I am home small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect. They don’t know what affordability rules are; they don’t know when penalties may apply. They just don’t know. I was talking to one CPA — you know, he’s not histrionic, he’s just being straight with me. He says, “Max, I just got to tell you that, you know, my — my — my clients, small business people are just throwing their hands up, and I don’t know what to tell them.” So that’s just from the small business perspective, let alone all the other issues that are going to be arising here.[...]

I just tell you, I just see a huge train wreck coming down. You and I have discussed this many times and I don’t see any results yet. What can you do to help all these people around the country going, “What in the world do I do and what — how do I know what to do?”

Sebelius’s answer is clear: For one thing, the real outreach is scheduled to begin a few months from now, when the bill is actually about to go into effect. But even given that fact, buying advertisements, hiring “navigators,” flying officials out for meetings — all of it costs money:

SEBELIUS: Well, Mr. Chairman, as — as you know, and — and we have had these discussions a number of times, we certainly take outreach and education very, very seriously. It’s one of the reasons that I think we were incredibly disappointed that our requests for additional outreach and education resources were not made available in the C.R. of 2013.

Having said that, we have engaged in efforts with the Small Business Administration, who is doing regular meetings around the country with our regional personnel. We have just released a request for proposal for on-the-ground navigators, individuals who come out of the faith community, out of the business community, out of the patient community, out of the hospital community, who will be available to answer questions, walk people through scenarios, hold seminars. We do regular seminars and Webinars, but we also understand that people have a lot of questions and are deploying as many resources as we can to answer those questions and get folks ready to engage in open enrollment on October 1st.

So here’s the chain of events: Republicans manage to deny Obamacare the anticipated funding required for smooth implementation. This makes implementation go less smoothly. Democrats begin to worry. Republicans use Democratic worries over implementation as a way to attack the law itself.

Neat trick, huh?

My read of the evidence is that the Affordable Care Act will have a much tougher first year than was initially anticipated but it won’t be the catastrophe that Republicans hope. The exceptions will be a handful of states where Republican governors have purposefully made it a catastrophe, but that’s likely to make the Republican governors look bad, particularly if the law is working smoothly in states that have tried to make it a success.

Conservative commentary on the law, with its continuous predictions of explosive premium hikes (and continuous omissions of the offsetting subsidies) and gleeful celebration anytime anything looks to be going wrong, is risking the mistake that the Obama administration made early on with the sequester. When the predictions of pain and chaos didn’t instantly come true, the whole narrative shifted in an instant.

Republicans have done a very good job prepping the country for the pain of Obamacare. They’ve not done a good job prepping the country for the people who will be helped by Obamacare.

But notice that Sebelius confidently predicts that the exchanges will be ready for open enrollment on Oct.1. There will be hitches, problems, and even scandals — but a lot of people are also going to get health insurance. Are the critics ready for that?

At this point, even some of the supporters aren’t ready for that. At the end of the hearing, Baucus jumps back in with a final question. Like many others, he’s heard that the administration is delaying the small-business exchanges — also known as the SHOP exchanges — for a full year. He wants answers. The answer, however, is that the SHOP exchanges will, in fact, be up and running this year:

BAUCUS: Yes. The real concern is the business perspective more than it is the consumers, individuals. I think I heard you say the shop — I forgot what it’s exactly called — will be delayed.

SEBELIUS: No, sir. That is not accurate. The shop will be up and running in every market in the country. For the states where the federal government will be operating the marketplace we are delaying one portion of the shop plan, which is that employers, if they choose to do so, could offer a wide variety of plans to his or her employees.

Year one for the federal marketplaces, employers will have a choice of coverage for their employees but that choice will then be passed along. Year two and beyond for the federal marketplaces, the employer, if he or she chooses, can then turn to the employees and say, “You can choose among, you know, 15 different plans.” And for state-based marketplaces that employee choice could be available from day one.

But we’ll have a two-step, so in 2014 all employers will have a choice. They’ll have a choice of plans to offer their employees, they just will not be able to say to that employee, should they choose to do so, “You can choose any plan in the shop market.”

BAUCUS: Okay.

Sarah Kliff has more on the SHOP exchanges here. But the underlying dynamics is worth noting: At this point, even Baucus is beginning to believe hype and rumors about how badly implementation is going.

The law could, in its first year, work substantially worse than was initially promised but still cover eight million people (rather than 15 million), hand out subsidies to tens of millions of grateful families, and provide a glitchy but broadly functional portal for buying health insurance. Meanwhile, most insured Americans, be they on employer-based coverage or in Medicare, likely won’t notice it at all.

That’s a world entirely consistent with Obamacare working “poorly,” and with some people seeing rate hikes or other unwelcome changes, but not particularly consistent with the Republican narrative on Obamacare destroying the American health-care system.

I doubt that Obamacare will have an easy or smooth first year. The law is big, complicated and unwieldy on its own terms, and Republican congressmen have done enough to withhold funding, and Republican governors and state legislatures enough to withhold cooperation, that implementation is sure to suffer. But Republicans may have set the bar so low that if this law even kind of works, it will be greeted with relief and surprise.

The year 2014 is going to be very interesting.

ObamaCare Survival Guide

Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare surprises,defund ObamaCare,surviving ObamaCare,Kathleen Sebelius,HHS,Affordable Care Act,taxes,socialized medicine,watch the other hand,stand-up America,wake-up America

Republican governors decide against setting up ObamaCare insurance markets

Fox News:

Video: Rick Perry on Neil Cavuto… Not Setting up ObamaCare Insurance Markets

Several Republican governors, in what could be their last symbolic stand against ObamaCare, announced Friday that they will not set up a state-based marketplace for selling health insurance.

A total of 20 states have now decided not to implement their own exchanges -- which could also mean increased costs for the federal government.

The governors of Wisconsin and Ohio joined Texas Gov. Rick Perry and others in confirming that they will not establish so-called "health insurance exchanges," which are set to launch in January 2014. Under the federal health care overhaul, these exchanges will act as virtual markets where people and small businesses can shop for private coverage in a regulated environment. Many will also be eligible for government subsidies.

The governors' move does not stop those exchanges from being implemented. Rather, it kicks the project back to the federal government to run with regard to those states. While a number of states, largely those run by Democrats, will establish their own exchanges, Republicans who declined argued that it wasn't worth the cost and resources to set up a marketplace that would be under the thumb of the federal government anyway.

"As long as the federal government has the ability to force unknown mandates and costs upon our citizens, while retaining the sole power in approving what an exchange looks like, the notion of a state exchange is merely an illusion," Perry wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said the same, writing in a letter to Sebelius Friday that "no matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents." With that in mind, he wrote, the state has decided not to build its own system. Ohio Gov. John Kasich echoed that point of view.

Republican governors have been largely opposed to the health care law anyway. But for months, they were effectively waiting to see if the Supreme Court would overturn it or whether Obama would lose re-election and potentially leave an opening to repeal it. Neither of those things happened.

Walker was among those who stopped implementation last year on the hopes the law would be overturned either by the U.S. Supreme Court or Republicans following the November election.

Thursday evening, the Obama administration responded to a request for more time from Republican governors on the exchange question by granting states a month's extension, until Dec. 14.

A few states have signaled they want to partner with the federal government, as opposed to running it themselves or handing the reins to Washington. Those states would handle consumer issues and oversight of health plans in the exchanges, while the feds do the heavy lifting by enrolling individuals for coverage and determining who's eligible for government assistance. Among these states are Arkansas and North Carolina.

The number of partnership states could grow significantly, since the Obama administration has given states until next February to decide on that option.

Obama's election victory virtually guaranteed the survival of his health care law, which is eventually expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million people through the exchanges and expanded Medicaid programs. It was the final hurdle, after the Supreme Court upheld a legal challenge from 26 states. In the aftermath of the election, some Republican state leaders say it's time to accept the law.

"I don't like it; I would not vote for it; I think it needs to be repealed. But it is the law," said Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, after announcing that his state wants to set up its own exchange. "If you default to the federal government, you forever give the keys to the state's health insurance market to the federal government."

Traditionally, states have regulated the private health insurance market.

But other Republican-led states say they don't have enough information to make a decision at this point and are clamoring for the Obama administration to release major regulations that have been bottled up for months.

"States are struggling with many unanswered questions and are not able to make comprehensive far-reaching decisions prudently," Govs. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wrote Obama earlier this week. They asked for a meeting with the president, as well as a postponement of the original Nov. 16 deadline.

Some of their main concerns are hidden costs of operating the exchanges and the sheer bureaucratic complexity of the new system. The Obama administration has steadfastly maintained it will not postpone the Jan. 1, 2014, launch date for the law's coverage expansion. Open enrollment for exchange plans will begin even sooner, Oct. 1, 2013.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related: 

Rick Perry: 'Another federal power grab'

Perry may not have last say on health care

Medical giant Stryker cuts 1,170 jobs, citing ObamaCare

Technorati Tags: Rick Perry,Republican Governors,ObamaCare,Obamaland,ObamaTax,health insurance exchanges

Obama’s Abortion - HHS Mandate a Full-Fledged War on Religion

(LifeNews.com)The fact that Tyndale House Publishers, based in Carol Stream, has needed to take a stand in court against ObamaCare’s abortion pill mandate should itself shock most Americans. The publisher simply believes that devout Christians in America are exercising religion when they publish the Bible and give the proceeds to religious charity. But even this idea is now disputed.

The president’s agencies have written rules that render evangelistic publishing of the Bible to be, well, not really religious. To the people who drafted the ObamaCare rule, and its defenders, religion is little more than a target of derision and marginalization.

Tyndale House is a Bible publisher, but the administration believes it shouldn’t qualify for an exemption because it initially earns a profit on its published materials…before directing 97 percent of that profit to non-profit religious charities and causes.

Some advocates for the abortion pill mandate erroneously contend that Tyndale House, instead of the Obama administration, wants the government to pick and choose what is and isn’t truly “religious,” and even to interpret what biblical authors really meant.

This is the opposite of the truth. In America, the burden of proof to violate religious freedom is not on citizens, but on the government. The government needs to stay out of religious gerrymandering and respect free exercise of religion, period.

In the First Amendment, the Founders took for granted that religion exists, and far from ridiculing it, they set up a barrier to protect it. President Bill Clinton and a broad bipartisan majority followed suit when they passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993.

The administration and Tyndale House’s critics are the ones asking for government to decide what the Bible means. The Obama administration has drawn a tiny circle around what it calls “religious employers,” and has left most religious Americans out in the cold. But the government shouldn’t be drawing that line in the first place.

Secularists seem to believe that since courts shouldn’t decide what the Bible means, Christians aren’t allowed to decide either. Instead, the administration forces believers to follow the theological decisions of President Obama and Planned Parenthood.

Nothing could be further from America’s tradition of religious freedom. Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish.

When defenders of the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate wring their hands about the impossibility of respecting varying religions and biblical interpretations, their rhetoric is actually intended to take away from what’s really at stake—the freedom of Americans to live, do business, and serve the community without the government forcing them to violate their conscience.

This is partly what led a Denver federal court to put the mandate on hold for the Newland family, which runs Hercules Industries. The court declared that ObamaCare’s arbitrary rules about who must comply and who gets exceptions “completely undermine” the government’s alleged interest in forcing Christians to violate the biblical respect for life. The mandate forces a wide range of Christians to violate basic, shared tenets of their faith or denomination.

Supporters of the abortion pill mandate are the ones trampling on the First Amendment and religious freedom. They support a scenario where the state simply “defines” most religious believers out of existence. And when a Bible publisher is no longer religious enough to have convictions the law will respect, then the government’s usurpation of religious freedom is well underway.

Related:

Catholic Bishop: Vote for Obama “Stretches the Imagination”

Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,abortion,ObamaCare surprises,HHS,Catholics,war on religion,Life,Life is a Gift,pro-life,abortion pill mandate,wake-up America,Wake-up Christians

HHS mandate loses first test in federal court

Hotair:

Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:12:52 PM by SeekAndFind

Don't get too excited by this court decision, an injunction against the HHS contraception mandate that goes into effect on Wednesday. We've seen other court rulings on ObamaCare go one way, only to be disappointed in the final test at the Supreme Court. Still, I'd rather win the first round than lose it (via The Anchoress):

The Catholic family that owns a Colorado-based company won a court victory in their battle to stop the Obama administration from requiring them to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, a mandate they say violates their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Hercules Industries, a Denver-based heating ventilation and air conditioning manufacturer that employs nearly 300 full-time workers, got an injunction in federal court which stops enforcement of the controversial ObamaCare mandate. The company's lawyers said they needed the injunction immediately because if the mandate is enforced, it must begin immediately making changes to its health plan, which renews on November 1st.

The case is similar to ones brought by Catholic-based colleges that have refused to provide employee insurance with such coverage, except this time, it is a secular corporation.

In his order, Colorado District Judge John Kane said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

The injunction only applies to Hercules Industries, not the mandate as a whole, and it's only temporary, as William Jacobson points out at Legal Insurrection. However, the usual paradigms for issuing temporary injunctions are that the judge believes the plaintiffs have a substantial chance of winning the case, and that the regulation or action being halted does significant damage to the plaintiff. That hints at a favorable ruling at the district court level for Hercules, which is definitely good news, as the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the owners of Hercules, proclaimed in its statement:

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever order against the mandate on behalf of Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it. The administration opposed the order, arguing, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business. The mandate could subject the Newlands to millions of dollars in fines per year if they don’t abide by its requirements.

“Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just that,” said Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The cost of freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that will cripple their business if the Obama administration ultimately has its way. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that Washington bureaucrats cannot force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living. Americans don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

In his order, Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion. As the Tenth Circuit has noted, ‘there is a strong public interest in the free exercise of religion even where that interest may conflict with [another statutory scheme]….’ Accordingly, the public interest favors entry of an injunction in this case.” Kane explained that the government’s “harm pales in comparison to the possible infringement upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.”

According to the brief Alliance Defending Freedom filed along with the motion requesting the injunction, “the mandate disregards religious conscience rights that are enshrined in federal statutory and constitutional law.” It also violates the First Amendment “due to its massive inapplicability and its discrimination among religions,” the brief explains.

The Newlands have to win the case and have it upheld at the appellate level before it has force as a precedent. That seems, though, like a slam-dunk, especially after the very recent Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC that unanimously found a ministerial exception to equal-opportunity laws in religious schools — the very kind of religious organizations that got excluded from the religious exemption by the HHS contraception mandate. The fractious justices united in limiting the application of regulations dealing with federal mandates in what might be considered second-tier religious organizations, and the HHS mandate appears to occupy a very similar relationship as the EEOC issues in Hosana-Tabor. Plus, frankly, the HHS mandate seems flat-out offensive on its face to the First Amendment, which seems to be Judge Kane’s take, at least initially.

This is definitely a good start for those who have demanded respect for freedom of religious practice and expression. But, just as a reminder …

CLICK LINK FOR THE VIDEO

Technorati Tags: Catholic Colleges,Alliance Defending Freedom,ObamaCare court cases,ObamaCare,ObamaCare mandates,individual mandate,HHS,HHS mandates,ObamaCare surprises,EEOC,freedom of religion

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate

A few facts:

Freedom of Religion is the cornerstone of America.  It is the main reason that most of the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries came to America.

Judeo-Christian values were purposely chosen by Thomas Jefferson as a basis for our system of law.

The words or phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, only in a letter between Thomas Jefferson and his cousin and the intent there was that God could and should be part of American laws and lives.  It is the government that was to be restricted from interfering with religion.  But thanks to the progressive focus to stop teaching history and to using case law instead of Constitutional law, most people don’t even understand the phrase that is being used against them.

Nowhere in the Constitution Does It Talk About Separation of Church and State and the concept was pick up from a letter between Jefferson and a cousin, but the context was changed. The concept was to protect the church from the government, not the government from the church. From:  Did You Know?  The Founding Fathers and God

You can be religious or not… but abortion is the murder of human beings.  If everyone before they had an abortion and everyone who stands back and remains neutral, especially those that believe in God, had to see the graphic photos below or see what their actions and inactions cause(d), abortions would stop.

President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius support late term and partial birth abortions.  President Obama voted against legislation when he was a Senator allowing babies who survived abortions from being comforted or helped.

Let’s ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book “Women and the New Race“, what the purpose of birth control is:(Page 229)

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.

Ok, now it makes sense. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.

And let us not forget who is behind ObamaCare, the contraception mandate and forcing taxpayers to pay for contraception & abortions, as well as Catholic and other religious hospitals and facilities to provide these products and services (against their beliefs and consciences)  … Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sibelius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

Please support the Catholic Groups who are fighting for the First Amendment, for life and for America’s value system.

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate

More than three dozen Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal courts on Monday challenging the constitutionality of the so-called contraception mandate in President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

Claiming that their “fundamental rights hang in the balance,” a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate suits against the requirement that employers’ health insurance plans cover birth control.
The mandate created a storm of controversy when it came to light as part of Obamacare. The Obama administration softened its position on the mandate several months ago.

"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress — and will keep at it — and there's still no fix," said Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York. "Time is running out, and our precious ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."

In a statement, the archdioces said: "The Archdiocese of New York has filed this suit because the federal government is requiring religious organizations, under penalty of law, to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate access to services that are contrary to their deeply held and constitutionally-protected religious beliefs."

Obama shifted responsibility for paying for reproductive procedures from religious institutions to health insurance companies. But employees of Catholic institutions will still be able to get contraceptive coverage from their health plans.

Just last month, Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl told Newsmax.TV, “This is the invasion of our religious freedom by a government mandate.”

A statement from the University of Notre Dame on Monday said the requirement would call on religious-affiliated groups to “facilitate” coverage “for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church."

“The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures” and “authorizes the government to determine which organizations are sufficiently ‘religious’ to warrant an exemption from the requirement.”

The Archdiocese of Washington also issued a statement reading in part: “Today, the Archdiocese of Washington filed a legal action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) unprecedented mandate dramatically redefining religious ministry and requiring religious organizations to provide coverage for drugs and procedures in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.

“Archbishop Carroll High School, Inc.; Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; and The Catholic University of America are also plaintiffs in the same action.

“The archdiocese’s complaint maintains that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment and federal law by forcing the plaintiffs, all Catholic organizations, to sacrifice their beliefs in order to be able to continue their mission of serving all people in need.
“Specifically, the suit stems from the mandate’s new definition of what constitutes a religious organization. Contrary to long-standing precedent, the law exempts from the mandate only those religious institutions that primarily serve and employ individuals of their own faith. Any other religious organizations, like Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and charities that serve all individuals regardless of their faith, do not themselves qualify as religious for purposes of the exemption.

“Consequently, the HHS mandate forces these organizations to act in direct violation of their Catholic beliefs.”

Cardinal Wuerl said in the statement that the mandate forces Catholic institutions “to provide coverage for drugs and procedures that we believe are morally wrong.”

© 2012 Newsmax

Step #1: Count how many of the 14 photos below show babies and how many of the photos show non-babies. Here is the first photo:

 

So, how many babies vs. Non-babies did you see above? Were they 5 babies vs. 9 non-babies? Were they 8 babies vs. 6 non-babies, 11 babies vs. 3 non-babies ... Or were all of them babies?

Abortions, including early abortions and grotesque partial birth abortions, as well as the cold-blooded born alive abortions, all of which President Obama supports, violate clear Bible verses against them.

"If abortion is murder, why do some Christians defend abortion?"
People - Christian or otherwise - who doubt abortion is murder and try to defend it usually do so by redefining murder exceptionally narrowly and/or by claiming that these Bible verses about abortion apply to babies whom they inexplicably declare to be the exceptions to the rule (and self- declaration doesn't necessarily prove a person to be Christian).

The question of whether or not abortion is murder typically leads to asking "when" is abortion murder, which in turn eventually leads to asking what is a baby and what isn't yet a baby, but merely a zygote, an embryo or a fetus.

You most likely have good sense of judgment and perception, so instead of letting other people try to draw conclusions for you, draw your own conclusion on whether or not abortion is murder by using this quick and simple test

Source: God Voter – h/t to George King

Someday, if America and mankind survive, the people of our time will be considered barbarians for allowing abortions to be performed!

 

Technorati Tags: abortion,pro-life,contraception mandate,ObamaCare,partial birth abortions,Catholics sue,Catholic hospitals,abortions

Franciscan University of Steubenville drops student health plan over HHS mandate

by Ben Johnson - Tue May 15, 2012 12:51 EST

STEUBENVILLE, OHIO, May 15, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholic religious leaders have warned that religious institutions may be forced to stop providing health care coverage if the Department of Health and Human Services does not change its mandate to provide contraceptives, including abortifacients, as part of their health care plans. Today, the first Catholic university has followed through by dropping its health care plan for students.

The Franciscan University of Steubenville announced it will not furnish students with health care coverage effective this fall, specifically citing the HHS mandate as the reason.

“The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover ‘women’s health services’ including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),” a statement posted on its website states. “Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.

“Due to these changes in regulation by the federal government, beginning with the 2012-13 school year, the University 1) will no longer require that all full-time undergraduate students carry health insurance, 2) will no longer offer a student health insurance plan, and 3) will no longer bill those not covered under a parent/guardian plan or personal plan for student health insurance.”

The rising premiums that attend a greater government role in health care were another reason for the cancellation. “Additionally, the PPACA increased the mandated maximum coverage amount for student policies to $100,000 for the 2012-13 school year, which would effectively double your premium cost for the policy in fall 2012, with the expectation of further increases in the future,” the statement said.

The college located in eastern Ohio, which is ranked one of the best private college values by Kiplinger, noted its current student health insurance plan will expire on August 15.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

On September 29 the university was one of 18 Catholic colleges to write a letter asking the Obama administration to rewrite the mandate, noting they were “being forced to choose between offering such coverage, paying a fine, or offering no coverage at all.”

An employee of the university, Tom Crowe, wrote his employer’s message was brisk and clear: “We. Will. Not. Comply. And our students are the first one who will feel the pinch.” He added that the university is not self-insuring and would not have been exempt from the mandate, adding such an exemption exists “on paper only.”
Catholics universities are not the only religious institutions poised to take drastic action as a result of the Obama administration’s abortifacient decree.

Chicago’s Francis Cardinal George has warned all Catholic hospitals will close in two years unless the religious exemption is expanded. Together, the nation’s Catholic hospitals account for 13 percent of the nation’s hospitals.

If these hospitals closed it would create a supply shortage, with the likely effect being government programs will be forced to pick up the slack.

South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy said at a House Oversight Hearing on February 16 that closing religious hospitals and schools, or forcing them to end health care coverage, “means government is gonna get bigger, because they’re going to have to fill the void…and maybe that’s what they wanted all along.”

HHS mandate could close 13 percent of the nation’s hospitals

Cardinal George: All Catholic hospitals will close in two years under HHS mandate

Technorati Tags: franciscan university of steubenville,hhs mandate,ObamaCare,religious freedom

Protests Against HHS Abortifacient Mandate in 140 Cities; Will Media Cover?

Stand Up For Religious Freedom Nationwide Rallies Friday

ABC, CBS, and NBC covered the far-left Occupy Wall Street movement with glee during 2011, devoting 33 stories on the air during the first eleven days of October alone to publicizing the protests. However, the Big Three networks have yet to mention the planned demonstrations in 140 cities across the U.S. today at noon local time against the Obama administration's sterilization, abortifacient, and contraception mandate.

The Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate, which is being coordinated by the Illinois-based Pro-Life Action League; and includes multiple pro-life, social conservative, and religious groups, including Human Life International, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Alliance Defense Fund, and Priests for Life; have organized the "Stand Up For Religious Freedom" rallies "in defense of religious freedom and STAND UP against the Obama administration's HHS mandate at federal building in cities across the country."

Back on October 5, 2012, NBC's Brian Williams celebrated the arrival of the Occupy movement, describing it as a "massive protest movement" that "could well turn out to be the protest of this current era." One might expect that rallies in 140 cities against the federal government might be describe, at the very least, as a large movement. But given that the media have ignored the annual March for Life in Washington, DC, where tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people protest against abortion, it will not be a complete surprise if the Big Three minimize or omit covering the pro-religious freedom demonstrations.

The MRC's Rich Noyes pointed out in his April 2010 special report, "Tea Party Travesity," that on "the night of the final vote on ObamaCare in March, for example, ABC's Diane Sawyer cast Tea Partiers as out-of-control marauders, 'roaming Washington, some of them increasingly emotional, yelling slurs and epithets.' CBS's Bob Schieffer also cast a wide net, accusing 'demonstrators' of hurling 'racial epithets' and 'sexual slurs,' and even conjured images of civil-rights era brutality: 'One lawmaker said it was like a page out of a time machine.'''

Given this kind of track record of smearing conservatives, expect the rallies to get similar coverage, if they get covered at all.

Source: News Busters ^ | March 23, 2012 | Matthew Balan  -  h/t to MJ

Related:  Stand Up For Religious Freedom Nationwide Rallies Friday - Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate

Stand Up For Religious Freedom Nationwide Rallies Friday - Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate

Stand Up For Religious Freedom Nationwide Rallies Friday

Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate ^ | 3/10?/12 | Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate  -  Cross-Posted by John Jansen (March 20, 2012 at 2:05 pm)  -  h/t to MJ

Notable Speakers to Address March 23 Rallies

In addition to the 15 Catholic bishops scheduled to speak at Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom locations, countless other influential speakers from all walks of life will also be addressing rallies throughout the country this Friday, March 23.

The speakers at the more than 130 Rally sites represent a wide array of backgrounds and professions, including members of Congress, physicians, college presidents, pastors, radio hosts, law professors, heads of organizations, publishers, religious sisters, pregnancy resource directors, and rabbis.

The New York City Rally will feature several big names, including Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and pastoral associate of Priests for Life; Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Msgr. Philip Reilly, and Mother Mary Agnes Donovan, Superior General of the Sisters of Life.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Father Paul Schenck, Rev. Rob Schenck, and the Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse will address the Rally outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

In addition to the Bishop David Choby, the Nashville Rally will feature Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) and Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Liberty Commission.

The Chicago Rally will feature Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL); Mary FioRito, Executive Assistant to the Archbishop, Archdiocese of Chicago; and Joe Morris, Past President of B’nai B’rith in the Midwest.

Moving over to the West Coast, the San Francisco Rally will feature Reggie Littlejohn of Women’s Rights without Frontiers, Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ of Ignatius Press, and Kevin McGary, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of California.

These are just a few of the hundreds of speakers who will be addressing enthusiastic crowds at Rally sites across the country this Friday, March 23. You won’t want to miss it!

Find the Rally location nearest you here.