Judge Dismisses Notre Dame Lawsuit Against HHS Mandate

[Draggingtree]

LifeNews:

Judge Dismisses Notre Dame Lawsuit Against HHS Mandate

by Steven Ertelt | South Bend, IN | LifeNews.com | 1/4/13 4:25 PM

A federal judge has dismissed the lawsuit Notre Dame filed against the HHS mandate compelling religious groups and businesses to pay for drugs for their employees that may cause abortions.

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. dismissed the suit, claiming that Notre Dame is sufficiently protected by a very narrowly-drawn religious exemption in the mandate — that pro-life legal groups say does not apply to every religious entity.

As First Things reports:

Judge Miller notes that all other courts but one which have ruled on the matter have found the plaintiff’s claims “unripe”:

None of those rulings bind this court, but the majority are persuasive. Notre Dame’s claims aren’t ripe, and they don’t have standing to bring them. Both conclusions flow from the government’s creation of a safe harbor for certain employers (including Notre Dame) e it re-works the regulation.

[Draggingtree]

Five Reasons the Obama Abortion-HHS Mandate Should Upset You

by Alliance Defending Freedom | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 12/31/12 2:28 PM

As we look back on the past year, we conclude that 2012 is a year that will go down in infamy.

For the first time in history, the government has attempted to force Americans to pay for the ending of human life – even if abortion violates their religious beliefs.

The issue came to a head this summer when the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate was scheduled to go into effect. The mandate forces employers to provide health insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. And many employers are compelled to provide these in spite of their sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary.

Rather, it is the first battle in an ongoing war—a war to determine whether the government gets to decide not only who is religious, but which religious beliefs are worthy of protection.

Here are five reasons why the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate should concern you.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/31/five-reasons-the-obama-abortion-hhs-mandate-should-upset-you/

[SrWoodchuck]

The one that went against the Obamunist regime was this one, that commented on how, even if the suit is "unripe" a plaintiff does not have to take the government at their word. From the link:

 

As U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan wrote in ruling in favor of the Archdiocese of New York on the matter, …the First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action. There is no, “Trust us, changes are coming” clause in the Constitution. To the contrary, the Bill of Rights itself, and the First Amendment in particular, reflect a degree of skepticism towards governmental self-restraint and self-correction.