Employers ordered to notify workers of cuts to birth-control coverage

Wake-Up people… once ObamaCare is really in effect, nobody is going to get half the services or free stuff they were promised!!!  There are no free rides in this world and all you have to do to verify that is ask anyone who has lived under socialized medicine, which is what ObamaCare is! 

This ‘order’ is just another ploy to make the Republicans look bad.

By Tom Howell Jr.  -  The Washington Times

The Obama administration ordered employers Thursday to notify their workers if they plan to cut birth-control coverage from their health plans in the wake of the Supreme Court’s “Hobby Lobby” decision.

Labor Department officials announced the policy just a day after Senate Republicans filibustered a bill that would have overturned the justices’ ruling, which said closely held corporations can refuse to insure contraceptives they object to on moral grounds.

Congressional Democrats cheered the administration’s move as an important step to give workers a chance to know what obstacles they may face in obtaining free contraception.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, introduced a bill to go even further and require for-profit companies to disclose their policies to job applicants, too.

“Workers should be informed if their employers are restricting the availability of coverage for contraception or any other health care service guaranteed under law,” said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat.

The Labor Department’s move marked a quiet change in course for Democrats who are trying to use the court-mandated change to Obamacare to their political advantage.

“For plans that reduce or eliminate coverage of contraceptive services after having provided such coverage, expedited disclosure requirements for material reductions in covered services or benefits apply,” the Labor Department said in its posting.

The contraception debate stems from an administrative rule that mandated for-profit companies to cover 20 forms of birth control as part of their company health plans. Dozens of employers objected on religious grounds, particularly to morning-after pills they equate with abortion, resulting in litigation.

Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate, and the administration extended a compromise to faith-based nonprofits that would allow them to waive responsibility for covering contraception. The accommodation has been rejected by some religious colleges and charities and is being contested in court.

Hobby Lobby’s employee health coverage includes 16 of the 20 birth-control methods mandated under Obamacare, including both female and male condoms, along with birth-control pills, diaphragms and spermicides.

Republicans welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision last month to let for-profit employers duck the contraception mandate tied to Obamacare, calling it a win for religious liberty.

But Democrats seized on the adverse ruling to raise campaign funds and whip up progressive fervor ahead of November’s congressional elections. Their efforts seemed to stall Wednesday, when a Senate bill that would require corporations to cover contraception failed to get the 60 votes need to overcome a procedural hurdle.

Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, authored the bill to reverse the ruling and is using the issue in his race against his Republican challenger, Rep. Cory Gardner. Mr. Gardner has said contraceptives should be offered without a prescription, and Senate Republicans have proposed a bill to study over-the-counter birth control.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said Thursday it strongly supports Obamacare’s approach because it provides birth control without cost-sharing, while over-the-counter contraceptives may remain out of reach for many women.

“Cost is a major factor in a woman’s consistent use of contraception,” the group said, “and many women simply cannot afford the out of pocket costs of contraceptives without health insurance coverage.”

Hobby Lobby Wins SCOTUS Decision as Obama Racks Up a String of Judicial Losses at Supreme Court

It has been a tough week for President Obama at the Supreme Court!  As the somewhat surprising ObamaCare loss to Hobby Lobby was added to the tally on Monday, the Obama administration lost 4 out of 5 big decisions and 2 were rare 9 to 0 decisions.

The Roberts Court

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

Although not unanimous decisions, after months of judicial rulings reining in big government and police on issues like snooping on Americans without a warrant, restrictions on campaign finance and President Obama’s recess appointment powers, the administration’s losses on ObamaCare rules and compulsory union dues served as a final rebuke by the Supreme Court on their last day of this session.

In the five years that President Obama has been in office, the Supreme Court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times.

During the eight years each in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the government lost on unanimous votes 23 times and 15 times, respectively, putting the Obama administration on course to to be the biggest loser in recent history in terms of judicial losses.  Unfortunately for the American people, Obama won on the big one… the most damaging decision for America: ObamaCare, a decision many people are still baffled by and questioning.

President Obama appointed two of the sitting Supreme Court Judges Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, under an umbrella of considerable scrutiny and dissent by conservatives, the right. So the number of unanimous cases are important in that nobody can say, ‘Well, there are five Republican appointees on the court and only four Democrats.’

“These cases where they haven’t gotten the votes of either of the two Obama nominees means the arguments being presented by the Justice Department to the court are just out of left field,” said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Monday’s decisions were not unanimous, but congressional Republicans and other critics of President Obama saw the rulings as evidence that the Roberts court is finally acting as something of a final line of defense, a check and balance as they were meant to be, against a president who brags about his use of executive power to bypass Congress and impose his progressive agenda on the American people.

House Speaker John A. Boehner said of Monday’s decision, “It is a victory for religious freedom and another defeat for an administration that has repeatedly crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its big government objectives.”  Boehner announced last week that he would be suing the president for abuse of executive authority.  And although it is unclear how that lawsuit will play out, the administration’s recent track record in high-profile cases has been poor.

Chief Justice John Roberts managed to corral unanimous votes on both privacy and recess appointments — cases that have dealt stinging defeats to the president, having himself been a lawyer and former lecturer on constitutional law.

US Supreme Court to police: To search a cell phone, 'get a warrant':

Christian Science Monitor: WASHINGTON — In a major affirmation of privacy in the digital age, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that police must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

The 9-to-0 decision marks a Fourth Amendment landmark of profound importance given the ubiquity of cell phones, tablets, and portable computers in public places throughout society.

“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life,’ " he said.

“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought,” the chief justice said.

“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple – get a warrant.” Read More

The Supreme Court delivered a solid blow Thursday to President Obama, ruling that he went too far in making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

SCOTUS Limits Recess Appointments Decision:

Fox News: In a unanimous decision, the high court sided with Senate Republicans and limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments. It was the first-ever Supreme Court test involving the long-standing practice of presidents naming appointees when the Senate is on break.

In this case, Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break when he filled slots at the NLRB in 2012. He argued the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling the seats.

The justices rejected that argument, though, declaring the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted during that three-day window.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution. Read  More

On recess appointments, justice was delayed but served…

Mandatory Union Fees Curbed by Court in Blow to Labor

BusinessWeek: A divided U.S. Supreme Court handed a setback to organized labor by placing new limits on the ability of unions to demand fees from some public-sector workers.

The high court, voting 5-4, invalidated Illinois rules requiring union payments from people who provide in-home care for disabled Medicaid recipients. The majority said those rules violated the workers’ constitutional right to freedom of speech and association because the home health-care workers weren’t true public employees.

“If we accepted Illinois’ argument,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in today’s majority opinion, “we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”  Read More

Hobby Lobby Wins SCOTUS Decision

Ask Marion/THITW:  Monday’s decision was very narrow and some pro-life and religious groups question whether it was a win in the long run in their battles.  It certainly was in the short run!! You be the judge…

Attorneys Who Defended Hobby Lobby Celebrating

American Thinker: Hobby Lobby 1, Obamacare 0

The Supreme Court upheld the religious freedom rights of Hobby Lobby, the closely-held corporation owned by believing Christians who objected to being required to supply the abortion pill to their employees.

Steve Ertelt of Life News reports:

…the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Alito handed down the decision for the high court, saying, “The Supreme Court holds government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage.”

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion saying that government itself could provide the coverage for contraception and the abortion-causing drugs if a company declines to do so.

The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies. Non-profit groups like Priests for Life and Little Sisters are still waiting for a ruling about their right to opt out of the mandate.

Note that this ruling only applies to closely-held corporations, but does not rule out applying the same religious freedom reasoning to publicly-held firms and nonprofits.

Ed Lasky points out:

The fact that both these decisions [Hobby Lobby and the forced union dues case] were 5-4 points out the danger of Obama picking the next SC Justice with Reid in control of the Senate. If the opportunity present itself, he will abolish the filibuster for SC nominees, too.

Memo.com: The Supreme Court Gets It Right

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has stepped up to defend Americans’ most basic freedoms from the full-frontal assault by the rampaging band of leftists running America. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, a Christian business that objected on religious ground to Obamacare’s mandate that they must cover certain contraceptives.

Hobby Lobby is among about 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives. Some, like Hobby Lobby, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude abortifacients.

Justice Samuel Alito said the decision is limited to contraceptives. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” he said. He suggested two ways the administration could deal with the birth control issue. The government could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to say the administration can solve its problem easily. “The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it,” Kennedy said. He said that arrangement “does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.” Everyone’s rights respected and problem solved. Easy peasy.

Of course, Obamacare was never about health care or health insurance. It was only and always about government power and control. Over you. That’s what the contraceptive mandate was all about: social engineering, abortion made even easier to get, and with the government holding the strings of control over all of it.

Thank goodness the Supremes ruled on the side of religious liberty. It’s about time. But that 5-4 split is too close for comfort. As we head into 2016, don’t forget that the Supreme Court—like all of our courts—hangs by a thread, and with it, our most basic freedoms.

Huffington Post:  If Hobby Lobby Wins, Pro-life Christians Lose

We now know with certainty that the Supreme Court will announce its Hobby Lobby decision on Monday. This weekend, the craft and home décor store, along with numerous evangelical institutions that have filed briefs in its support -including my former employer the National Association of Evangelicals–are hoping and praying God will favor them with a whole new expansion of religious freedom and the protection of human life. I’m praying for the opposite.

Along with nearly 50 other for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby is demanding the same religious freedoms and protections that each of us has. Hobby Lobby was not endowed by its Creator with certain unalienable rights. It does not have a soul. It cannot have faith. Yet its owners (and their lawyers) insist that it should not have to comply with the contraceptive coverage requirement in the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds. The Obama Administration reasonably granted an opt-out to houses of worship and other religious nonprofits. Hobby Lobby wants similar treatment.

Evangelical intervention on behalf of the multi-billion dollar corporation, which donates generously to their causes, is wrong for many reasons but here are two major ones: If you are pro-religious liberty and pro-life and family, you can’t support allowing a for-profit corporation to use religion to deny contraceptive coverage.

First, supporters of Hobby Lobby think they are helping the Christian faith but are actually harming it. In fact, a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby weakens religious freedom.

When anyone can use religion to claim an exemption on anything, religion loses meaning. Rather than a personal belief embedded in our souls, faith would become a set of arbitrary rules any corporation could choose from to skirt the law.

Is this what evangelicalism needs? I spent nearly three decades in governmental relations at the National Association of Evangelicals defending the free-exercise of religion and the right to life, among many other traditional values. Coming to the aid of for-profit corporations who want to ride on the backs of religion is not one of these honored principles.

Indeed, it is a kind of corporatism invading the body of Christ — concern not for the “least of these” but the richest of those among us. Is this what Christ would do?

When corporations are allowed the same exemptions that have always been reserved just for churches–whether on health benefits, hiring, or land use–those special protections become less clear and more open for interpretation.

If a for-profit corporation is eligible for legal exemptions on grounds of religious freedom, it puts government in charge of deciding what is or isn’t religion. You can just imagine the lawyers who will find work forever litigating these claims. I know, from experience, that their concern for what should be “legal” is not the same as what is “spiritual” or truly serves the interests of the Church.

What if a corporation owned by Jehovah Witnesses refuses to cover blood transfusions? If Christian corporations are allowed to use faith to refuse contraception coverage to women who work for them, what’s to stop a Christian Scientist business from refusing to cover any health benefits?

Second, the supporters of Hobby Lobby think they are being “pro-life.” They are wrong. A massive study conducted in 2012 showed that contraception coverage without a co-pay could dramatically reduce the abortion rate.

That study, conducted by the Washington University School of Medicine, of 10,000 women at-risk for unintended pregnancy found that when given their choice of birth control methods, counseled about their effectiveness, risks, and benefits, with all methods provided at no cost, about 75 percent of women in the study chose the most effective methods: IUDs or implants. Most importantly, as a result, annual abortion rates among study participants dropped up to 80 percent below the national abortion rate.

Well, you might ask, based upon some of the charges being made, aren’t the contraceptive methods being funded through the Affordable Care Act, abortifacients? Not if you believe medical science.

In the words of Jeffrey F. Peipert, M.D., Ph.D., the Robert J. Terry Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine, “these contraceptive methods work by preventing pregnancy (fertilization) from occurring in the first place. For instance, the intrauterine device works primarily by preventing fertilization. Plan B (or the progestin-containing, morning-after pill), along with Ella (ulipristal acetate), delay the release of a woman’s egg from her ovary. The egg does not get fertilized, which means the woman does not become pregnant.”

In sum, Evangelicals supporting Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court are not actually being pro-religious freedom or pro-life. If they win at the Supreme Court, these causes will be damaged in the long run.

Although this decision in favor of Hobby Lobby is generally seen as a victory by most on the right, and a win for freedom in general, it has opened the door for a lot of whining by the left, who will certainly take their misinformation and use it as a weapon in the upcoming 2014 Elections.  Therefore, it could not be a better time for Carly Fiorina’s new Pac… the UP Project, to educate women.

A big Supreme Court win on ‘greenhouse gas’ regulations for the EPA

The only win for the White House and the EPA this Supreme Court Session was on greenhouse gas:

Human Events:

The outcome is likely to be welcomed by environmentalists because it confirms the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to restrict greenhouse gases.

The justices handed down two separate rulings in a dispute over permits for new or modified power plants and factories.

In a 7-2 vote, the justices agreed the Environmental Protection Agency could force major polluters to use new and better technology to limit their emissions of carbon dioxide.

“These are major polluting facilities, such as factories and coal-fired power plants,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, and they are already subject to EPA restrictions. Now, those restrictions can include limits on greenhouse gases, he said.

The only disappointment faced by the regulatory State was that a separate 5-4 decision kept it from extending this authority to “millions of other facilities,” as the L.A. Times puts it, although I think that could be more properly rendered as “virtually all other facilities.”  The greenhouse-gas fantasy retains its grip on power plants, but at least they can’t make nearly every construction project pull “greenhouse gas permits,” which is where all of this was headed.  Today’s ruling also won’t do anything to stop the broader War on Energy carried out by the Obama Administration.  Considering what they won at the Supreme Court, their losses are trivial. Read More

Jonathan Turly Weighs In On Supreme Court Ruling & Executive Orders Special Report:

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): Professor Turley, the constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It's about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president's unilateral modification of act of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.

This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction. (House hearing, December 3, 2013).

Video:  Jonathan Turly Weighs In On Supreme Court Ruling & Executive Orders Special Report

UPDATE: The Kelly File, 2/12/2014: Turley on Expansion of Presidential Powers: "We Have Become a Nation of Enablers"

As for me… All in all, I’d say it was a great week!!  It is just too bad we can’t get decisions on the Constitutionality of important matters a little bit quicker!  It would save us a whole of hurt… money and time!!

Related:

Hobby Lobby Wins SCOTUS Decision

Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Decisions in Two Important Patent Cases: What Do This Week’s Limelight and Nautilus Decisions Mean for You?

Two Unanimous Supreme Court Decisions Grant Immunity to Police, Secret Service

Supreme Court ruling dents public sector labor unions

Justices turn away 'conversion' therapy ban cases

Scalia Dissent: Judicial Gay Marriage Decision Is Jaw-Dropping

Supreme Court: Prayer at council meetings Constitutional

Did NSA Blackmail Roberts to OK ObamaCare?

U.S. Supreme Court dumps AZ voter law

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare…

Scalia vs. Thomas Jefferson on secession

Democrats eye Hobby Lobby defeat as a weapon on the campaign trail

HUMPHRIES: The liberal bully of the week is … Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Critics Question Constitutionality of President’s Executive Actions – Andrew Napolitano – The Kelly File

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court,Obamaland,SCOTUS,Law,Constitution,Chief Justice John Roberts,Scalia,NLRB,ObamaCare,Constitutional Law,Case Law,Overreach,Speaker Boehner,John Roberts,Fourth Amendment,Unons,EPA,Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Obamacare’s Tough Day in Court

Divided Supreme Court Hears Hobby Lobby’s Challenge to the Contraceptive Mandate

By: Roger Aronoff  -  Accuracy in Media  -  Cross-Posted at the NoisyRoom

Since its passage, a number of lawsuits have attempted to undermine Obamacare as a law, with varying degrees of success. The individual mandate challenge failed before the Supreme Court in 2012, despite what seemed like positive reception to the challenge during oral argument. Hobby Lobby went before the Supreme Court on March 25 to challenge the religious liberty implications of the contraception mandate portion of the law.

While the media have largely focused on the Hobby Lobby challenge, a few blocks away, the D.C. Court of Appeals was hearing another argument about Obamacare—one that, if passed, could well have the effect of ending this law as we know it. And it has liberals running scared.

In the piece “Forget Hobby Lobby. The Bigger Legal Threat to Obamacare Still Has Life,” Alec Macgillis writes for the New Republic, “If the contraception challenge succeeds, it just means that that one sliver of Obamacare is struck down. If this other challenge succeeds, both sides agree that it would blow up the entire law.”

The argument for the plaintiffs is as follows: In order to provide the 60th vote, which was necessary to get the bill through the Senate, Ben Nelson, the then-Democratic senator from Nebraska, insisted on a clause that said that federal subsidies could only go to people who signed up on exchanges set up by the states. The purpose was to incentivize states to actually set up exchanges.

Then, the plaintiffs argue, the IRS wrote a rule in 2012 which reinterpreted the law to say that federal exchanges could give out subsidies as well. “The alternative policy under the IRS’ rewriting of the rule creates a bizarre circumstance where it’s almost impossible to fulfill the Act’s purpose of having state-run exchanges, because it eliminates any tangible incentive for these people to go ahead and adopt the exchanges,” argued Michael A. Carvin, the plaintiffs’ attorney, before the Court of Appeals on March 25. “So they’ve created a situation which has predictably resulted in only 14 states doing what Congress clearly wanted 50 states to do, which is to set up their exchanges.”

Arguably, however, the mostly Republican governors who have refused to set up exchanges also did so for political reasons.

Carter-appointed Judge Harry Edwards had a Hillary Clinton moment during the oral arguments. He demanded that Carvin “forget the subsidies” argument and explain why it was important whether the federal government or states control the exchanges. He demanded loudly, twice, “What difference does it make who does it? Forget the subsidy.”

But we can’t forget the subsidies. They are at the heart of the law, and its practice. The Washington Post has reported that “About 85 percent of those signing up for insurance in federal-run exchanges have qualified for financial assistance to purchase coverage.” In other words, this amounts to a massive federal redistribution of wealth for millions—85% of enrollees. (Let’s ignore for a moment that we have no idea how many enrollees actually purchase their insurance after “selecting” it. If they know, the federal government isn’t telling us.) “Without those subsidies, the insurance would be less affordable, leaving those with the greatest health needs with more motivation to purchase coverage,” writes the Post. “That makes for a worse risk mix, driving up the cost of insurance to cover the sicker pool of people, creating what’s known as an insurance ‘death spiral.’” The federal exchange is already at risk of a death spiral if it cannot entice enough of the young and healthy to sign up.

The case could also undo the individual mandate. “Were the case to succeed, it would mean that dozens of state governments opposed to Obamacare could significantly narrow its scope by refusing [to] set up exchanges, thus preventing residents from claiming subsidies,” explains the Washington Examiner. “In those states, employers wouldn’t be penalized for failing to offer qualifying insurance (which is triggered by workers seeking federal subsidies), meaning that anti-Obamacare states could become more attractive to businesses trying to get around the employer mandate.”

“It would also increase pressure on Congress to undo the individual mandate.”

Judge Edwards said that this was a transparent attempt by Carvin and his plaintiffs to “gut” the law. Indeed, those opposed to the lawsuit seem more concerned with saving the law than looking at the Act’s original language. MacGillis cites Clinton-appointed Judge Paul Friedman in his earlier ruling that “Plaintiffs’ proposed construction in this case—that tax credits are available only for those purchasing insurance from state-run Exchanges—runs counter to this central purpose of the ACA: to provide affordable health care to virtually all Americans…Such an interpretation would violate the basic rule of statutory construction that a court must interpret a statute in light of its history and purpose.” “Under the challengers’ logic, Judge Friedman added, the exchanges administered by the federal government ‘would have no customers, and no purpose,’” writes Macgillis. Is it really the Courts’ purview to decide whether a government program should survive, as opposed to whether the law is being executed constitutionally and legally?

Indeed, according to The Wire, without federal subsidies, “Many of those people would fall in to the hardship gap and not have to buy insurance or pay the individual mandate.” There are two other cases besides this one “challenging the authority of the IRS to rewrite the statute and allow subsidies to flow through the federal exchanges,” according to Forbes.

Never afraid of punditry, MSNBC abandoned all pretense of journalism and called this discussion of the Senate’s original intent a “drafting error.” Adam Serwer writes that “The Affordable Care Act managed to have two bad days in court on the same day,” adding that the argument means that “Congress was handing Republicans an Obamacare self-destruct button.”

But, he offers hope to his liberal readers: “If the government loses before the panel, it can ask for the D.C. Circuit to hear the case ‘en banc,’ before the judges on the D.C. Circuit.” Then it could go to the Supreme Court.

Why is the ‘en banc’ ability important? Because President Obama has stacked the court, of course. “After the Democrats nuked the filibuster, Obama was able to make four appointments to the court,” writes Serwer. “Though judges’ opinions don’t always track with those of the party that appointed them, thanks to the changes to the filibuster, more Democratic appointees than Republican appointees would rule on the matter.” In other words, partisan politics would play out if the entire bench were to hear the case.

A decision is supposed to come in late June, and looks like it will be in favor of the plaintiffs. But, the Washington Examiner warns, oral arguments can be misleading. “As always, it’s hard to predict judicial outcomes based on oral arguments, a lesson that was made abundantly clear when many observers predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down the individual mandate only to see it upheld,” Philip Klein writes.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

Hobby Lobby vs Sebelius Goes Before the Supreme Court

INFOGRAPHIC: What Exactly This Hobby Lobby Case Is About

If the contraception mandate passes, it will ruin a core U.S. ideology

 

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Affordable Care Act,Contraception,SCOTUS,Supreme Court,ACA,PPACA Medicare,Mandates,Religion,Christianity,Sebelius,Ideology,Americana,Rick Warren,Thoughts,Constitution,Founding-Ideals,Freedom,Hobby Lobby

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement - Justice Resolutions - Obama Admin Vs Little Sisters 1-4-2014

Video: Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement - Justice Resolutions - Obama Admin Vs Little Sisters 1-4-2014

Pirro On Obamacare Contraception Mandate: YOU LIED!

“And yet, you as a former constitutional professor, refuse to exempt them from the contraception mandate. You, the same guy who grants exemptions and waivers left and right to unions, political buddies, bundlers, but not to the women who have devoted their lives to God and caring for the sick?” – Judge Jeanine Pirro

By Caleb Howe

On Fox News’ Justice With Judge Jeanine on Saturday, host Jeanine Pirro in her opening statement addressed the Obamacare contraception mandate and the nuns made famous recently by Justice Sotomayor.

It seems all to obvious, and Pirro puts it in stark terms. But this is a clash of religions and those are rarely settled easily. On one side, the Catholic Church and their fundamental religious objection to providing contraception. On the other, the Liberal Church and their fundamental religious devotion to giving every single living human being on the planet some form of contraception.

The Obamacare acolytes do not care about religious freedom. Well, not Christian religious freedom anyway. It is merely an inconvenient part of American life they tolerate so long as it doesn’t get in their way. But when that free exercise clashes with their fervent devotion to contraception and abortion, you can bet they won’t be willing to budge an inch. Lip service only lasts as long as the lips have nothing to yell about.

Pirro lays the fight right at President Obama’s feet, where it belongs. Here is the transcript of the above clip:

I want a government that respects religious freedom. Mr. President, now that you’re back from your Hawaiian vacation … how’d you hitt them? How’s that handicap? You come back and you try to take away from the Little Sisters of the Poor, a 175-year-old religious organization that cares for low income elderly who are dying, their right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of religion. You promised the Catholic Church you would not, under Obamacare, force those with religious objection to provide contraception to employees, which of course is contrary to their fundamental beliefs and their exercise of their religion.

In spite of your promise, you are spending millions in legal fees to force the Little Sisters of the Poor who spend their lives serving the sick and the elderly to provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacients to their employees? Pray tell, Mr. President, might you have lied to the Catholic Church? And now you’re going to court to sanction one home $6,700 a day? What don’t you understand about the Little Sisters of the Poor? Now, I don’t care if you’re pro-choice or pro-life, you have a fundamental right to practice your religion. You have a fundamental right to the First Amendment, freedom of religion.

And yet, you as a former constitutional professor, refuse to exempt them from the contraception mandate. You, the same guy who grants exemptions and waivers left and right to unions, political buddies, bundlers, but not to the women who have devoted their lives to God and caring for the sick? Hell, even a convicted muslim felon in federal prison can exercise their freedom of religion. They can’t be punished for exercising their religion. And you go after these nuns to force them to violate their religion or put them out of business? Am I asking for too much? We’re only talking about your word. Religious freedom, the First Amendment. Mr. President. It’s 2014, and we are not getting off to a good start.

 

Technorati Tags: Little Sisters,New Year's Resolutions

NBC Al Roker Has Epiphany… His 14-Year Old Daughter Can Now Get Morning After Pill

Marion Algier – Ask Marion – Cross-posted at THITW – h/t to TLA

 "Al" Albert Lincoln Roker, Jr., television weatherman and co-host of NBC's Today Show had an epiphany on today’s show (06.11.13), about a week late… or is that perhaps years late?… realizing that his 14-year-old daughter can now go get the morning after pill without his permission or even notification.

America has become a country of low and mis-informed voters fed by a media comprised primarily of either the ‘ideologically motivated’ or equally low and mis-informed people… or both, that for many Americans are their only source of news and information.

I mean really, Al… Albeit ‘Obama Central’', you work in the talk show/news industry; have ‘with it’ first and second wives (Deborah Roberts) and you have young children, a daughter.  Hello??

So which is Al… ‘ideologically motivated’, low and mis-informed… or both?  You be the judge.

Video:  Remember:…Weatherman Al Roker 'Yells Down' VP Joe Biden in 2nd Inauguration Parade (He and media pals… like MSNBC ‘quiver down my leg’ Chris Mathews go nuts)

Court Rules: Girls of Any Age Can Buy Morning-After Pill… Without Parental Consent

The brief order issued by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan permitted two-pill versions of emergency contraception to immediately be sold without restrictions, but the court refused to allow unrestricted sales of Plan B One-Step until it decides the merits of the government's appeal. It did not specify why the two-pill versions were being allowed now, though it said the government failed to meet the requirements necessary to block the lower-court decision.

Department of Justice spokeswoman Allison Price said the government was reviewing the court's order.

Appeals on both sides are pending…

CHICAGO, IL – APRIL 05: This photo illustration shows a package of Plan B contraceptive on April 5, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois. Credit: Getty Images

This photo illustration shows a package of Plan B contraceptive generic version

TheBlaze: NEW YORK (AP) — Girls of any age can buy generic versions of emergency contraception without a prescription while the federal government appeals a judge’s ruling allowing the sales, according to a ruling Wednesday by a federal appeals court.

The brief order issued by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan permitted two-pill versions of emergency contraception to immediately be sold without restrictions, but the court refused to allow unrestricted sales of Plan B One-Step until it decides the merits of the government’s appeal. It did not specify why the two-pill versions were being allowed now, though it said the government failed to meet the requirements necessary to block the lower-court decision.

The order was welcomed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, where President Nancy Northup called it a “historic day for women’s health.”

“Finally, after more than a decade of politically motivated delays, women will no longer have to endure intrusive, onerous and medically unnecessary restrictions to get emergency contraception,” she said in a statement.

The center’s litigation director, Julie Rickelman, said the government has two weeks to decide whether to appeal the 2nd Circuit’s decision on the stay to the full appeals court or the Supreme Court. Even if there is no appeal of the stay ruling, it was unclear how soon drugstores would move the two-pill emergency contraception from behind the counter. She said she hoped the pills would be available without restriction within a month.

“What it does mean is that generic two-pill products are going to be readily available to women without age restrictions, on any drugstore shelf,” Rickelman said. “It’ll be like buying Tylenol. You’ll be able to go get it off the drugstore shelf, no ID, at the regular counter.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Allison Price said the government was reviewing the court’s order.

CHICAGO, IL – APRIL 05: This photo illustration shows a package of Plan B contraceptive on April 5, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois.

The government has appealed U.S. District Judge Edward Korman’s underlying April 5 ruling, which ordered levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives be made available without a prescription, over-the-counter and without point-of-sale or age restrictions.

The government asked Korman to suspend the effect of that ruling until the appeals court could decide the case, but the judge declined, saying the government’s decision to restrict sales was “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified and contrary to agency precedent.” He also said there was no basis to deny the request to make the drugs widely available.

The government had argued that “substantial market confusion” could result if Korman’s ruling was enforced while appeals were pending, only to be later overturned.

The Food and Drug Administration was preparing in 2011 to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill with no limits when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled her own scientists in an unprecedented move.

The FDA announced in early May that Plan B One-Step could be sold without a prescription to those 15 and older. Its maker, Teva Women’s Health, plans to begin those sales soon. Sales had previously been limited to those who were at least 17.

Korman later ridiculed the FDA changes, saying they established “nonsensical rules” that favored sales of the Plan B One-Step morning-after pill and were made “to sugarcoat” the government’s appeal.

He also said they place a disproportionate burden on blacks and the poor by requiring a prescription for less expensive generic versions of the drug bought by those under age 17 and by requiring those over age 17 to show proof-of-age identification at a pharmacy.

Plan B One-Step is the newer version of emergency contraception – the same drug, but combined into one pill instead of two.

Technorati Tags: Roker,contraception,media,MSM,low-informed,NBC,dumbing-down of America,FDA,parenting,children,abortion,Sebelius,HHS,Obamaland,Big Brother,Big Pharma,society,Christians,MSNBC,pharmaceuticals,religion,levonorgestrel-based,culture,morality,ideology

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

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

You can’t make this up. Fred Lucas’ report at CNSNEWS.COM reveals how the Liberal Accounting procedures work, i.e., how they figure a program will be paid for: Not your tax dollars, of course.

“Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions… ‘The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,’ Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is ‘down not up.’…”

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Nov. 14, 2011 that $1 billion in health care grants were a way of 'sparking' the U.S. economy. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”

Sebelius took questions from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health about President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.

 

Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics--and members of other religious denominations that share those views--to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation's Catholic bishops have published letters saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."

Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty."

“The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.

The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.

During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.

“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” Murphy asked.

Sebelius responded that that is not the case with insurance.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.

Murphy expressed surprise by the answer.

“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” Murphy asked.

Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”

Murphy again sought clarification.

“Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back,” he said.

Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), a member of the subcommittee, said after the hearing that if mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.

“Their argument is this: Health insurance companies will offer it for free because they make money. You reduce the number of people getting pregnant therefore you reduce the cost of pregnancy, or low birth weight pregnancies or other kind of pregnancies,” Guthrie told CNSNews.com.

“If you think about it, why don’t health insurance companies provide it now if the argument is health insurance companies are going to make a lot of money? If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money,” Guthrie added.

Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.

CNSNews.com  -  h/t to AJ

 

Related Posts

• The Contraception Mandate Is Unconstitutional and Flat Out Illegal
• Obama Birth Control Mandate Backlash Continues
• “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” Shot Down In Senate
• BREAKING: Loophole Found to Avoid Obamacare Mandate!
• Will Kansas be the first state to pass law striking down Obama contraception mandate?

Related:

Obama Caught on Tape Arguing Against Giving Medical Attention to Aborted Babies

Eugenics:  Effective by Instrumentalism

What is the Real Purpose of Birth Control? Why is it So Important to Progressives?

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Bill Gates: Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become the Centerpiece of U.S. Foreign Policy

UN Ordered Depopulation of 3 Billion People by Food Malnutrition has Started – PBSpecial Report

Vaccines ARE (In Many Cases) Germ Warfare

Sterilization of Children… - See links at bottom of article as well

Eugenics and Other Evils

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius answered questions in Congress this week about the left framed ‘contraception compromise’ or the ‘first amendment un-compromise’ as framed by the right.

Sibelius essentially said that the decision has been made and this mandate along with many other surprises for those who did not follow the ObamaCare fight on in August 2013… PERIOD!  The decision has been made and will go into affect regardless of the Constitution, religious freedom or what the American people want. 

Remember what Nancy Pelosi said… “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in the bill!”  Well, you are beginning to find out.

So why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(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.

Now it should all start making sense to everyone. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics, which also explains Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin, based on her ideology and history. She 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.

America just celebrated 54 million abortions, a ‘choice’ everyone in the Obama administration supports. On the other side, the Priests for Life Group Just Sued the U.S. Government over the Birth Control Mandate. Sebelius admitted to Senator Orin Hatch during the hearings that she didn't consult bishops over contraception rule and also admitted that she/they did not consult with the Justice Department as to the constitutionality.

President Obama himself said that he had done the same thing when he was a community organizer.  He got leftist priests and nuns in Chicago to compromise the values of the church.

The backlash over Sibelius' interpretation of the mandate built to a crescendo last week. Obama went to the podium and announced a "compromise." It was no compromise at all ...  In reality, Obama’s contraception mandate tramples religious freedom.

This is not an issue that will go away and may haunt the president through the 2012 Election cycle.  It is a huge power grab and the first of many frightening realities of the what is really in the ObamaCare Bill.  It should be a flag to all concerned Americans that each us needs to read that bill and insist that our Congressman and Senators read it immediately… and act.  It should also be a flag to all Americans about the ideology of the President and his team and what is in our future if Obama survives this and is re-elected.

Socialized Medicine, which ObamaCare is, is he crown jewel of socialism… progressivism.  It gives the government the control over one sixth of the U.S. Economy and decisions over who get care and who doesn’t, who lives and who dies, and this fight in addition to being a fight over religious freedom and the first amendment, not contraception, is also a fight over what the government can make each of us buy and pay for from here on out.

One of the best explanations of this fight I’ve heard is:

If you are against murder and someone says, “Okay, you don’t have to kill anyone yourself. We will hire someone to kill them for you.”, there is no resolution to the issue. It goes against your values, against God and against everything you stand for. That is exactly what is happening with the birth control mandate being forced on the Catholic Church by the administration and ObamaCare.

Beck Announces ‘We Are All Catholics Now’ Movement to Stand Up for Religious Freedom

The controversy over the Obama administration’s contraception mandate is at a boiling point, as many Catholic leaders continue to view the president’s so-called “accommodation” as a failure to protect religious liberty.

Now, Glenn Beck is coming forward with a new movement called “We Are All Catholics Now.” The main goal of the initiative is to ask Americans to reach out to Congressional leaders (at the moment, Senators) to encourage the passage of legislation that would protect religious groups’ conscience rights.

Watch Beck discuss the effort on his radio show this morning:

Video:  Glenn Beck Announces 'We Are All Catholics Now' Campaign

The main push, Beck says, is to support the highway transportation bill, which will likely be voted upon this week. It will include an amendment – Blunt Conscience Protection Amendment – from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would protect religious conscience rights. In the House, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) is working on companion legislation, though it may not be voted on for a few weeks.

Beck is encouraging individuals to get involved by calling their Senators and letting them know that “we are all Catholics now.” The issue at hand is not about contraception as it has been framed by many media outlets, he says. Instead, it is a religious freedom issue that hinges upon the separation of church and state’s mandate that the government not force churches to violate their values and principles.

Here are his directions for getting involved and making an impact:

Call the Capitol and speak with your Senator. The numbers are: 202.224.3121; 202.225.3121; the toll free numbers for the Capitol Switchboard include: 1-866-220-0044 1-877-851-6437, 1-800-833-6354, 1-888-355-3588, 1-866-808-0065, 1-877-762-8762, 1-800-862-5530.

Call the switchboard, ask to be connected to a Senator from your specific state (it will take two calls, one for each Senator).

Whoever answers:

1. Tell them that you want to tell the Senator to vote for the Blunt conscience protection amendment.
2. Ask them if they know how the Senator will vote on that amendment
3. Tell them you want to be contacted back about how he voted (be sure to ask for accountability — they hate it, but it makes them call you back).
4. When you call, be sure to tell them “We are all Catholics now”. This key phrase will let them know you are part of a larger, organized movement working in support of religious freedom.

You can read more about the movement at GlennBeck.com.

Sitting in yesterday at GBTV was the co-author for Indivisible talking about the importance of his book as well as Glenn’s book Being George Washington during this pivotal times.

He spoke on the importance of uniting and turning back to God for divine intervention was our only chance to turn our country around.

This is the time to stand-up and choose your side.

Governor Palin appeared on On the Record calling this mandate an ‘Un-American Act’

Add this fight to the expected rise in unemployment (even with the job number game) and possible $5 gas prices at the pump… and this might end up being Obama’s Waterloo!  Some believe the timing of this fight is an answer to the prayers for intervention being said daily by many Americans.

This is not a fight over contraception and who will pay for it.  It is a fight over religious freedom vs. secularism, a fight over the Constitution vs. Progressivism, a fight over limiting the powers of the commerce clause vs. the government being able to force us to purchase and pay for anything they choose, and the fight over the ideology that will control this country.  This is not a fight that anyone can afford to sit out.

Ask Marion~

Related:

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle… But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

‘Un-American Act’: Palin Slams Obama’s Contraceptive Mandate as Violating Constitutional Rights

On Tuesday — Valentine’s Day — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had a not-so-loving message for President Barack Obama. In an interview with FOX News’ Greta Van Susteren, Palin unleashed on the president’s contraceptive mandate, calling his actions against the Catholic Church “un-American.”

Palin uttered this term, which is bold to attach to any U.S. politician — especially a president — two times during her interview with Van Susteren. The former vice-presidential candidate was clear that she sees Obama’s stance on the mandate as morally, Constitutionally and politically unsound.

“Very poor politics that they would choose such a battle,” Palin said. “One — to pick a fight with faith-filled Americans. You know, we will fight…to the death for our freedom of religion and for the rights that are protected by our United States Constitution.”

Following these remarks, she unleashed her “un-American” label not once, but twice:

“This is an un-American act of our president. Anything that would so blatantly violate an amendment within the United States Constitution is un-American and Barack Obama needs to re-think what he has just done to the people of America because we’re rising up on this one. We‘re not going to back off and we’re not going to say ‘Okay, it is alright that such a violation of conscience — such a violation of those things that our founders fought and died for — we’re just going to sit back and let it happen to us.’ Not this time.”

Watch these comments, below (around 1:50):

Video: Sarah Palin Says Barack Obama's Recent Actions Are "Un-American"

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle... But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

(If you are not up on this issue… follow the thread here from the bottom up)

Update: Religious organizations are already saying that the Obama’s announced compromise is hollow. Catholic Bishops and other religious organizations are moving forward with their protests. The political fallout from this issue could be huge in the 2012 Election among religious groups and Independents. Remember Obama carried the Catholic vote in 2008.

But in reality:  Obama Didn't Cave on the HHS Mandate; He's Making an Unprecedented Power Grab and this is why, if people realize, this could be Obama’s Waterloo!  And if not, we are in big trouble!!

Don't Be Deceived! Evil Obama Policy Now Even MORE Evil! 

Attention, Catholics, Protestants, and everyone who cares about the causes of life, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience!

Do not be suckered by the “accommodation” announced today by President Obama and spokeswoman Kathleen Sebelius!

*Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (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.)

Under the guise of making room for religious conscience, the President has actually made the policy worse—far worse.

Here’s how . . .

RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here.

Snip

So everywhere I'm reading that Obama is caving on the mandate in Obamacare that Catholic churches -- well, not churches, but the schools and hospitals are mandated to provide contraceptives and abortion-related services that they religiously disagree with. "What's happened here is that Obama's caved! He has seen, he has heard, and now he's gonna shift that burden to the insurance companies!"

Snip

Obama is not doing what he's doing to make Barbara Boxer happy or the pro-abortion crowd happy or the Democrat Senate Caucus happy. He knows that's gonna happen. What he's doing is violating the Constitution. He is coalescing extra-constitutional power. He is making a power grab here that is unprecedented in the history of the presidency. (interruption)

Thomas Edsall, that's right. Thomas Edsall wrote that piece in the Nuev Orc Times, former Washington Post columnist. So I don't think... This has been my if you then argument with the Republican establishment from the get-go with Obama. I don't think this is traditional politics at all. I don't think traditional politics has anything to do with why Obama's doing this. This is about fundamentally transforming this country from a representative republic to a pure, straight democracy with the president assuming he's the majority and therefore can do whatever he wants to do. We're not dealing with the average, "Okay, the Democrats won the White House. They're gonna have it for four or eight years. We gotta try to stop 'em however we can and we'll get power back."

There's something unprecedented going on here.

Woodrow Wilson dreamed of this.

FDR dreamed of this.

Obama is doing this.

The White House will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women!!!

by order and proclamation of...

BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate

They're Using Insurance for Communism' Ann Coulter Rocks CPAC

· Obama Didn't Cave on the HHS Mandate; He's Making an Unprecedented Power Grab

Friday, February 10, 2012 2:13:55 PM · by Kaslin · 13 replies  -  Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | February 10, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here. Great to have you. It's Friday. Let's go to! JOHNNY DONOVAN: Live from the Left Coast at our satellite studios in Los Angeles,...

· BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate  -  Friday, February 10, 2012 1:28:01 PM · by unique1 · 50 replies

Lifesitenews.com ^ | Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:32 EST | Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work. The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change...

· Contraceptive “compromise” worse than original mandate: Eliminates any exceptions

Friday, February 10, 2012 1:36:19 PM · by Qbert · 14 replies  -  Jill Stanek.com ^ | 2/10/2012 | Jill Stanek

UPDATE, 12:14p: More evidence the “compromise” stinks: Planned Parenthood likes it. UPDATE, 12:02p: From a House source: This “new policy” is a distinction without a difference.  The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it the employees anyway.  Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell...

Health insurers question Obama birth control plan

Friday, February 10, 2012 5:39:10 PM · by Oldeconomybuyer · 1 replies - Reuters ^ | February 10, 2012 | By Lewis Krauskopf

(Reuters) - U.S. health insurers said on Friday they feared President Barack Obama had set a new precedent by making them responsible for providing free birth control to employees of religious groups as he sought to defuse an election-year landmine. "We are concerned about the precedent this proposed rule would set," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group. "As we learn more about how this rule would be operationalized, we will provide comments through the regulatory process." Zirkelbach said insurers "have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that...

Obama Still Poised to Takeover Churches and Eliminate First Amendment

With regards to government intervention into religion, the First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First, Congress is the Constitutional body that has the authority to make laws for the United States of America. Second, it is to steer clear of anything pertaining to freedom of religion.

Obama's Big Compromise With The Catholic Church Is An Accounting Trick Catholics can't pay for it: morally it isn't much different than paying a Quaker in hand-grenades. The Church can't directly subsidize sin without being guilty… Read HERE

Pro-Abortion Planned Parenthood And NARAL Come Out In Support of Obama’s Contraception “Compromise,” Catholic Bishops Already Shot It Down… – You know this is bad!!

Let us all ask ourselves  again… Was the Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention? and let us not forget that a compromise now does not mean there is a change of ideology in the White House that will continue without compromise if Obama is re-elected.

AP Source Now Says Obama to Compromise

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Blaze has covered the religious freedom issues surrounding the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate extensively. President Barack Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge, according to a person familiar with the decision.

(Related: 5 Reasons the Obama Admin May Be Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle – See Posted Below)

Obama was expected to make the announcement at the White House Friday. ABC has more regarding what sources are saying the president is poised to present:

The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. [...]

One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.

In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception.

CBS News corroborates:

The exact nature of the clarification remains unclear, but any accommodation could largely follow what exists in a majority of states, like in Illinois where DePaul University, the largest Catholic university in the country, offers an employee health plan that does cover contraception. Georgetown University offers a similar plan.

The shift is aimed at containing the political firestorm that erupted after Obama announced in January that religious-affiliated employers had to cover birth control as preventative care for women. Churches and houses of worship were exempt, but all other affiliated organizations were ordered to comply by Aug. 2013.

Video: A Compromise on Contraception 

Republican leaders and religious groups, especially Roman Catholics, responded with intense outrage, saying the requirement would force them to violate church teachings and long-held beliefs against contraception.

The issue also pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that had been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama‘s health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans’ conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.

Republicans vowed to reverse the president’s policy, with House Speaker John Boehner accusing the administration of violating First Amendment rights and undermining some of the country’s most vital institutions, such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals.

The measure also sparked an internal debate at the White House. Vice President Joe Biden, then-chief of staff Bill Daley and deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, all Catholics, raised concerns about how the administration proceeded on the policy. On the other side, senior White House advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle, Pete Rouse and David Plouffe argued for the need to ensure coverage for all without exception, as a matter of women’s health and fairness.

'>'>'>Stephanie Cutter on CNN

The person with knowledge of Obama’s decision requested anonymity in order to speak in advance of the official announcement.

This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned for updates.

5 Reasons the Obama Admin May Be Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle

The Obama administration clearly underestimated the response it would receive from Catholics and non-Catholics, alike, after implementing a universal mandate on health plans that requires coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

As the Blaze has extensively documented, the response has been swift and hard-hitting. Many liberals who traditionally support these options for women have been jumping ship to side with Catholic leadership in agreement that the administration has overstepped its bounds — an event that so rarely happens in theological and political circles.

But it’s important to note that, despite very boisterous outcries, Obama does have support from some liberals on this issue; many of them are pointing to the fact that nearly all Catholic women use contraceptives as a defense. Using this argument, those who favor the mandate claim that the Church is out of touch and not accurately speaking for its followers on this important women’s health issue.

But is this the proper lens through which to view the issue? Free and religious speech advocates would argue that usage has little to do with views on government intervention in church affairs. In the end, it’s a complicated scenario with political capital for whichever side wins the public over. At the moment, the situation may not be as favorable for Obama as he would like. In an article published on Wednesday, Religion News Service’s David Gibson provides five reasons that the president may be losing the battle.

First, the debate, despite what the mandate’s supporters say, is about religious freedom — not contraception. Regardless of where one stands, the main issue at hand is whether the government has the right to interfere in church affairs and dictate what will be covered in health care plans. Gibson writes:

The bishops don’t have as much credibility with the laity as they used to, thanks to the clergy sex abuse scandal, among other things. But Catholics are still a potent tribe, and if outsiders are seen as attacking the church, Catholics can get defensive – and they can get even.

Then there’s the fact, as mentioned, that some liberal Catholics have abandoned the president on the issue. Regardless of where these individuals stand on use of these health care options, forcing Catholic institutions (among other faith-based groups) to violate their conscience just isn’t sitting right.

Now, let’s talk about those other faith groups. Many times, people of different religious traditions have a tough time coalescing, but on this issue, individuals with varying theological ideals are coming together. After all, it’s one thing to sit back and watch an attack on a rival faith group unfold, but when considering what could happen, should this mandate go unchecked, many religious people are fearful: “What’s next?,” they’re wondering. Gibson continues:

Even though evangelicals and other conservative Protestants generally don’t have religious objections to contraception, they do have a big problem with “big government” and with perceived infringements on religious freedom. Evangelicals – both their leaders and their troops – have never been big Barack Obama supporters anyway, so they were happy to provide any electoral and rhetorical muscle the Catholic hierarchy could not muster.

Video: Obama Administration, Catholic Leaders Clash Over Contraception Mandate

The fourth reason Gibson highlights is the fact that the “attack on religion” frame the issue is being explored through is an appealing one for Republicans. While many conservatives are wondering why Obama would approach this subject in an election year to begin with, others are noticing just how effective religious freedom rhetoric will be for the GOP nominee.

The rhetoric is already ratcheting up. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said earlier this week.

And, of course, there’s the overwhelming fact that the president will need to secure the Catholic vote to ensure re-election. “While Obama won the overall Catholic vote 54 percent to 46 percent in 2008, he lost the white Catholic vote, 47 percent to 53 percent,” Gibson writes. It‘s hard to imagine the president won’t lose a portion of this important cohort as a result of his refusal, thus far, to compromise.

As GOP Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have both said, “Obama has shown his hand and if he is re-elected, even if they walk this back now, this is the road that his administration will go down!”

Sure, he’s shown “openness” to the ideal of coming up with a viable solution that appeases both sides, but to those so staunchly opposed, such a notion isn’t good enough. The president will need to admit wrongdoing and back away from the mandate, should he wish to appease many of those individuals who feel wronged by the government’s newfound regulations. So far, there’s no evidence that he will take such a course.

Click here to read Gibson’s RNS article.

Related:

Senator Rand Paul stood-up and blasted the HHS mandate as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian; “Gloves are off”, he said!

Rubio Crushes Obama and His Contraceptive Mandate At CPAC; says it is a Constitutional issue!

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?