Tag Archives: Topic: Insurance

CNSNews: In the face of a statement that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued Friday saying that Vice President Joe Biden had spoken falsely when he said no Catholic institution would be required under an Obamacare regulation to “refer,” “pay for” or “be a vehicle” for someone to get contraception, President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign said it is standing by what Biden said.

LifeNews: The amicus brief was authored and filed Friday by attorneys of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has worked closely with Catholic and other Christian colleges in defense of their constitutional rights. “Belmont Abbey is not alone. Every faithful Catholic college is already suffering the damage caused by this ruinous mandate, which demands that they violate their deeply held Catholic beliefs,” said Bob Laird, Director of Programs for The Cardinal Newman Society. “Additionally, Christian colleges, businesses, and other employers who fear the loss of their religious freedom are similarly affected by the mandate. This amicus brief represents a united front in opposition to the Obama administration’s outrageous violation of religious freedom.” Catholic colleges signing ADF the amicus brief are . . .

CBN (includes video): They just don’t want to have to provide abortion pills and other items in this plan that violate their faith,” Matt Bowman, with Alliance Defending Freedom, said.

liance Defending Freedom attorneys who are litigating numerous lawsuits against the Obama administration’s abortion pill and contraceptive mandate are calling Vice President Joe Biden’s claims that effectively denied the mandate’s existence in Thursday’s vice-presidential debate “amazingly false.”

Religion Clause Blog: The complaint (full text) in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sebelius, (ND GA, filed 10/5/2012) alleges that the mandate violates the 1st Amendment, RFRA, the Administrative Procedure Act and amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Vincent Phillip Munoz at Public Discourse: In yesterday’s article I presented two costs of religious liberty litigation against the HHS mandate–the probability that not all religious objectors to the mandate will be exempted from it even if its current legal challengers win their cases, and the overreach of judicial authority that these lawsuits involve. Today I will discuss how litigation tends to undermine the strongest arguments against the HHS mandate, which appeal to the reason of all Americans, religious or non-religious. I’ll conclude by explaining how the potential costs of religious liberty litigation could be avoided by refocusing the debate on those arguments.

Matt Bowman appeared on the Georgene Rice Show to discuss the Tyndale Publishing litigation. | MP3 audio 9:04 mins

NRB: “Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish,” added ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is simply absurd.”

Public Discourse: Current lawsuits against the HHS contraceptive mandate may undermine religious liberty in the long run. Not all religious objectors to the mandate are likely to be exempted even if the lawsuits are successful, and judges violate the core meaning of religious liberty when they assess plaintiffs’ religious character. The first in a two-part series.

Religion Clause Blog (links to press release and complaint): New suits continue to be filed challenging the mandate under the Affordable Care Act requiring that most insurance policies cover contraceptive services. The latest is Korte v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (SD IL, filed 10/9/2012) (full text of complaint . . .

Baptist Press: Underscoring once again it’s not a Catholic-only issue, two Baptist colleges have filed suit against the Obama administration’s abortion/contraceptive mandate, saying they’re standing up for what Baptists long have defended — religious freedom.

LifeSiteNews: As Congress probes expensive public relations contracts to market the unpopular ObamaCare law to the American public, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently announced that it has inked a deal worth more than $3 million to promote ObamaCare’s “exchanges.”

Matt Bowman apppeared on Relevant Radio, A Closer Look with Sheila Liaugminas to discuss the HHS Mandate and the Tyndale Publishing Suit. | MP3 audio 24:05 mins

Wilson, Robin Fretwell, The Calculus of Accommodation: Contraception, Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, and Other Clashes Between Religion and the State (October 2, 2012). Boston College Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 1417, 2012; Washington & Lee Legal Studies Paper No. 2012-31. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2155867

Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, Which Religious Organizations Count as Religious? The Religious Employer Exemption of the Health Insurance Law’s Contraceptives Mandate, Engage Volume 13, Issue 2, July 2012.

Christian Institute: Over-40s who are denied free IVF treatment can now sue the NHS under new age discrimination laws.

Thomas More Society: Autocam Corporation, the lead supplier of fuel injection parts to Bosch, Delphi, Conti, and Hitachi, has joined the growing number of businesses suing the government over religious freedom violations. The lawsuit, filed on October 8 by the Thomas More Society on behalf of the privately held manufacturer of precision automotive and health components and its owners, is a direct response to the Obamacare Health & Human Services (HHS) mandate requirement that they provide group insurance coverage of abortions, sterilization, and birth control for their employees.

National Review: Referencing the Department of Health and Human Services abortion-drug, contraception, sterilization mandate, the president said: “I don’t think a college student in Fairfax or Charlottesville should have to choose between text books or the preventive care that she needs. That’s why we passed this law. And I am proud of it. It was the right thing to do. And we are going to keep it.”

Matt Bowman appeared on the Zeb Bell Show to discuss the Tyndale Publishing challenge to the Obamacare mandate. | MP3 audio 11:19 mins

Palm Beach Post: In the proposed amendment, they also included a single sentence — “This constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution” — that at least with respect to abortion would strip the right to privacy guaranteed in Florida’s constitution.

LifeNews: Today, East Texas Baptist University (ETBU) and Houston Baptist University (HBU) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, asking the court for relief from the Department of Health and Human Services’ “preventative services” mandate, which forces the Christian Universities to violate their deeply held religious beliefs or pay severe fines. “Baptists in America, by virtue of their history, are particularly sensitive to coercive government actions that infringe on religious liberty,” says Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed suit this morning on behalf of the two universities.

A federal court has scheduled an Oct. 16 hearing to consider whether to halt enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Bible publisher. The court scheduled the hearing in response to a preliminary injunction motion that Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Tyndale House Publishers filed Monday.

Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review: “The law does not give any religious-freedom exemption to faith-based operations like Tyndale,” Taylor, who is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, points out. “Instead, it imposes crushing fines on employers who are doing nothing more than following their consciences against abortion-inducing pills. The government is supposed to promote conscience protection, not attack it. The best solution is for Congress or the administration to respect the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by eliminating the abortion-pill mandate. But if they refuse to do their duty, we hope the courts will rule that the mandate is unlawful.”

The Citizen Link Audio report is here.

Matt Bowman on the Bob Dutko Show to discuss the suit. | MP3 audio 6:18 mins

Kinder v. Geitner, No. 11-1973

A group of seven plaintiffs, including Samantha Hill and Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (acting in his personal capacity), brought this action to challenge various provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”). Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010). The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Hill and Kinder appeal, and we affirm.

CNSNews: First lady Michelle Obama called contraception “basic preventative care” and invoked her daughters before talking about women’s “decisions about our bodies” during a campaign fundraising event Tuesday.

Religion Clause Blog: An ADF press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit explains: The publisher is subject to the mandate because Obama administration rules say for-profit corporations are categorically non-religious, even though Tyndale House is strictly a publisher of Bibles and other Christian materials and is owned by the non-profit Tyndale House Foundation.

Pro Life Blogs: “Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is. Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

Melissa Steffan at Christianity Today: “The federal government has deemed devout publishers of the Bible to be insufficiently ‘religious’ to enjoy religious freedom in America,” the complaint stated. According to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund), which is representing Tyndale, “The publisher is subject to the mandate because Obama administration rules say for-profit corporations are categorically non-religious.”

Catholic World News on Catholic Culture: “To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd,” said Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defending Freedom. “Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is…. The federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

WorldNetDaily: “Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is. Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

Victor Morton at the Washington Times: The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Tyndale, called the rule an unconstitutional and arbitrary threat to religious freedom. “Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is. Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

Examinder.com: In a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom, Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman stated, “Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish. To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is. Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

The Republic: A Christians-only health care ministry must cease operations in Kentucky unless it can get regulatory approval from the state Department of Insurance, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Tyndale House Publishers filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate. Tyndale House is one of the world’s largest privately held Christian publishers of books, Bibles, and digital media.

Adam Liptak at the NY Times: In June, the Supreme Court pulled off a neat trick. By upholding President Obama’s health care law, it simultaneously bolstered public support for the law and hurt its own reputation.

ABA Journal: Is the possibility of a new challenge to the health-care law on the horizon? The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked the federal government for its views on a rehearing request by a religious university that is challenging the law, SCOTUSblog reports. Liberty University asked the Supreme Court to revive its lawsuit challenging the law in a rehearing request filed in July, Law360 (sub. req.) reported at the time.

Baptist Press: In filing its appeal, the administration sent a clear message that it wants to force families to abandon their faith in order to make a living,” said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney Matt Bowman. “That’s the opposite of religious freedom.”

Religion Clause Blog: In O’Brien v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, Sept. 28, 2012), Judge Carol E. Jackson (a President George H. W. Bush appointee) first held that she need not decide whether O’Brien Industrial Holdings (“OIH”), a secular limited liability company, is capable of exercising religion within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment because, even if it is, the contraception coverage mandate does not infringe religious exercise rights.

Biola U. Chimes: Alliance Defending Freedom’s . . . [Greg] Baylor, lead counsel on the case, said Biolans should care about the far-reaching effects of the decision — regardless of the outcome . . . Baylor participated in a panel two weeks ago that provided information to students and faculty on Biola’s decision to sue the government over the Health and Human Services mandate that would require organizations to provide for abortion-inducing drugs under Obamacare . . . With more than 25 different lawsuits filed against the government regarding the HHS mandate, the message is clear: People are unhappy, Baylor said. “I think the sheer volume of the cases is part of message that this is an egregious violation of freedom,” Baylor said. Biola’s lawsuit is one of many and it doesn’t have much to set it apart in any particular way, but the prestige of Biola’s name matters, Baylor said.

Thomas More Law Center: The Government attorney, on the other hand, argued that because Weingartz was a secular corporation it had no constitutional right to free exercise of religion or free speech. The Government also contended that the organization Legatus lacked standing, as the group was a non-profit company potentially eligible for a one year safe-harbor from the law.

SCOTUS Blog reports.

Michael New at National Review: Last month, an article by Brian Fung on the Atlantic Monthly website sent the media spin machine into overdrive. It provided data from the Massachusetts Department of Health which showed that abortion per capita in Massachusetts decreased after Romneycare took effect in 2007.

Kentucky Post: A Lexington lawmaker has drafted legislation that would prevent insurance plans made available to Kentuckians under federal health care reforms from paying for abortions.

Pottsmer.com: A federal judge has denied a civil rights group’s bid to join the government’s defense against a western Pennsylvania Christian college’s challenge to regulations requiring employers to offer birth control coverage

NRL News: “Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The Obama administration claims ‘unwavering’ support for religious freedom, but this appeal demonstrates that the only thing unwavering is the administration’s tenacious opposition to that freedom.” “The cost of religious freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that would cripple their business and potentially destroy jobs if the administration ultimately has its way,” Bowman said. “In filing its appeal today, the administration sent a clear message that it wants to force families to abandon their faith in order to earn a living. That’s the opposite of religious freedom.”

Christian Post: “Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith,” Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman said in a statement. “The Obama administration claims ‘unwavering’ support for religious freedom, but this appeal demonstrates that the only thing unwavering is the administration’s tenacious opposition to that freedom.”

Citizen Link: “The cost of religious freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that would cripple their business and potentially destroy jobs if the administration ultimately had its way,” Bowman said.

LifeNews: 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 . . . “Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The Obama administration claims ‘unwavering’ support for religious freedom, but this appeal demonstrates that the only thing unwavering is the administration’s tenacious opposition to that freedom.”

LifeSiteNews: The cost of religious freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that would cripple their business and potentially destroy jobs if the administration ultimately has its way,” said Matt Bowman, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom. “In filing its appeal today, the administration sent a clear message that it wants to force families to abandon their faith in order to earn a living. That’s the opposite of religious freedom.”

CNSNews: The National Catholic Bioethics Center has published an analysis saying that it will be immoral for a Catholic who owns a private business to purchase health insurance for his or her workers under Obamacare

Thomas More Law Center: This Friday, September 28, 2012, Federal District Judge Robert H. Cleland, of the Eastern District of Michigan, will hear oral arguments in Thomas More Law Center’s motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop implementation of the HHS mandate. The oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 9:30am, in Courtroom #712, at the U.S. Courthouse in Detroit, Michigan.

One News Now: Attorney Matt Bowman of Alliance Defending Freedom tells OneNewsNow, “Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith.” “The Obama administration claims it has unwavering support for religious freedom, but the only thing unwavering in the administration is its tenacious opposition to religious freedom,” the attorney asserts.

n contradiction to the Obama administration’s recent claims of “unwavering” support for religious freedom, the president’s lawyers filed an appeal Tuesday of a court order that upheld the religious freedom of a Colorado family business.

Acton Institute Blog: It is alarmingly clear that so-called “Obamacare” has troubling implications for parents and children, not just employers with religious convictions regarding artificial birth control and abortion. According to an article in the National Catholic Register, Matt Bowman, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, Obamacare: “tramples parental rights” because it requires them to “pay for and sponsor coverage of abortifacients, sterilization, contraception and education in favor of the same for their own children.” [more]

The AP reports on the situation in Arkansas.

Catholic News Agency: Matt Bowman, senior counsel for the religious liberty legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, said the mandate “tramples parental rights” because it requires them to “pay for and sponsor coverage of abortifacients, sterilization, contraception and education in favor of the same for their own children.”

LifeSiteNews: Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan gave the HHS mandate its execution date if he is election: “Day one.” The Wisconsin congressman said if he and Mitt Romney are elected in November, the requirement that religious employers, including many religious employers, to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs, “will be gone, I can guarantee you that.”

Barry H. Corey at National Review Bench Memos: With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, we are making our stand. What’s at stake? Our fundamental freedom to exercise our faith in the context of a community, and to live out the mission to which we’re convinced God has called us.

Orlando Sentinel: With Catholic organizations from around the state raising money to promote passage of an anti-abortion constitutional amendment in November, a coalition of religious groups is decrying the measure as a state imposition of religious dogma.

Casey Mattox at LifeNews: Yet while Alliance Defending Freedom successfully makes the case that this law violates employers’ religious freedom, the potentially devastating impacts of this mandate on others should not be ignored . . . It might be that the HHS Mandate really has two aims, the first of which is to establish the primacy of “sexual freedom” over religious liberty in the pecking order of constitutional protections. Alliance Defending Freedom and our allies are working to ensure that this does not happen. And the second aim may be to force resistant religious ministries into the prayer closet and out of the public square. Sadly, such an intention to water down the impact of communities of faith would be in keeping with previous steps the administration has taken to water down America’s stand for freedom of religion abroad to a more private and cloistered “freedom of worship.”

Jonathan Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy: Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt today filed an amended complaint in the state’s lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that, among other things, challenges the legality of an IRS rule that would authorize tax credits for the purchase of health insurance in federally run exchanges, and thereby expose Oklahoma employers to penalties should they fail to comply with the law’s employer mandate.

Jack M. Balkan at the Atlantic: The Right Strikes Back: A New Legal Challenge for Obamacare
The fight over health care reform is still going strong: A conservative group now argues that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because it started in the wrong House of Congress.

The Hill (embedded video): President Obama on Monday made a campaign pitch to “people of faith” in which he reaffirmed what he called his “unwavering” commitment to “protecting religious liberty.”

ABA Journal: Justice Antonin Scalia was “enraged” when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. switched his vote and created the majority needed to uphold the Obama administration’s health care law, according to a new book by journalist Jeffrey Toobin.

LifeNews: “We urgently need you to call Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai’s office and urge him to put Senate Bill 3 up for a vote,” she said. “This common sense measure, which has already passed the Pennsylvania Senate, would allow Pennsylvania to opt out of abortion funding under President Obama’s so-called health care reform law.”

News-Leader: The suit was announced during a press conference in which College President Jerry Davis raised his voice on many occasions, saying the federal government health care act will require the school’s insurance to pay for abortions, abortion services and abortion counseling. “We believe it violates our religious rights as guaranteed by the Constitution,” Davis said.

Alan Sears at the American Thinker: Someone once famously distilled some two centuries of American debate over individual “rights” into a single sentence: “Your right to extend your fist,” he said, “ends about one inch short of the tip of my nose.”

Matt Bowman at LifeNews: It is an irony that the promoters of “reproductive choice” insist on coercing everyone else into paying for other people’s abortions and sexual decisions. Frances Kissling, founder of the misnamed “Catholics for Choice,” will appear opposite me on Monday at the University of Wisconsin Marathon County in Wausau to argue in favor of a government mandate that forces employers to violate their religious beliefs just because they operate in America.

LifeNews: Next month, thousands of pro-life advocates in more than 100 cities will engage in rallies to stand up for their religious freedom against the controversial HHS mandate the Obama administration put in place.

LifeSiteNews: The Obama administration is set to levy as much as a $1.3 million per day fine against a Christian retail business based on their religious objection to abortifacient drugs, according to a lawsuit filed this week.

NCPA Policy Digest: Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $15,745 this year, up 4 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $4,316 toward the cost of their coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET) 2012 Employer Health Benefits Survey.

Volokh Conspiracy: The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a motion in its pending suit against Obamacare asking the judge (1) to rule that, when it enacted the Senate health care reform bill that includes a “tax” for not purchasing health insurance, Congress violated the Origination Clause, which says that all revenue bills must originate in the House; and (2) that their clients are under no legal obligation to purchase health insurance under the ruling of the Court.

STL Today: But just hours after lawmakers voted Wednesday, the new law was hit with its first legal hurdle. The Greater Kansas City Coalition of Labor Union Women and a female firefighter filed a lawsuit claiming that the legislation discriminates by sex and religion and that it goes against federal law.