This chain run by apparently Protestant Christians has refused to provide abortion pills, and faces fines of $1.4M per day for violating HHS’s mandate. Link. They have sued on the grounds that it violates their conscience to provide abortions.
A federal court has ruled against their lawsuit, on the grounds that they are not a church. Justice Sotomayor has denied their appeal for an injunction. (Text here.) Apparently this does not mean the suit is over, as I had read, nor was Sotomayor writing an opinion for the Supremes; one SC justice can rule alone on such matters. The appeal process will continue.
What I’d read earlier incorrectly suggested the appeal was over. But consider the situation. It’s by no means clear that the SC, once they get it, will not rule in Obama’s favor. What will they do then? Pay fines, possibly lesser ones. Go bankrupt. Refuse to pay fines (if that’s logistically possible) and go to federal prison. What a dark, dark time it’s become.
Academie
Going to need to build some concentration camps soon.
My nomination for the first one is: Detroit.
A win, not the war, but a good thing nevertheless!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/judge-us-cant-make-dominos-founder-tom-monaghan-offer-workers-contraceptive-coverage/2013/03/14/9b4c6cca-8cd9-11e2-adca-74ab31da3399_story.html
“…DETROIT — A judge has blocked the federal government from requiring the founder of Domino’s Pizza to provide mandatory contraception coverage to his employees under the health care law.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the contraception provision of the law against Tom Monaghan and Domino’s Farms Corp. near Ann Arbor, Mich…”
Hey, every little win helps, however small!
One bright spot in these new dark ages…thanks for the update, Jethro.
I think SCOTUS will rule against Obama on this one. But then, I thought they would rule against the mandate that all citizens must purchase health insurance, and I was wrong.
This one is a bit different, though; it interferes with freedom of religion. I can’t imagine how the justices could finagle words to get around that.
“I can’t imagine how the justices could finagle words to get around that.”
That’s what I used to think about the Commerce Clause, too. It has, however, pretty much vanished.
They won’t bother using words to get around freedom of religion. They will just ignore it. They will define religion out of existence, just as they have done with the Tenth Amendment.