#News: #Catholic lawsuit against #Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy

26 ‏@KeepUpTheFire

Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck S http://fb.me/16PvwwaW8

Collapse

8:23 AM - 24 May 12 via Facebook · Details

Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer

By Doug Powers • May 22, 2012 04:35 PM

**Written by Doug Powers

Yesterday, 43 Catholic institutions, including the Archdiocese of New York and Notre Dame University, filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over the contraception mandate’s infringement upon on religious freedom. The plaintiffs have two liberals unexpectedly working on their behalf to win the lawsuit against the Obama administration:

The biggest legal threat to the White House’s birth control mandate could come from a decades-old law that was championed by liberal Democrats, according to legal experts.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has been mentioned in nearly all of the more than 30 lawsuits pending against President Obama’s administration over the mandate. One, filed by the University of Notre Dame on Monday, cited RFRA’s protections in the first paragraph.
Legal scholars see the merit in challenging the mandate with RFRA, which then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced in 1993 to protect religious exercise from laws that might unintentionally restrict it.

According to the article, the law was introduced nearly 20 years ago after two Native American Church members in Oregon were denied unemployment benefits because they had been fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony (Elizabeth Warren was only allowed a 1/32nd mescaline dose but it still culminated in some pretty good recipes), but now the Kennedy and Schumer’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act might cause this particular provision in Obamacare take a trip and get overturned.

Related Media Bias Fun Fact: On last night’s ABC, NBC and CBS nightly newscasts, one of the largest (if not the largest) religious lawsuits in American history warranted a grand total of 19 seconds of air timebetween the three networks.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: 2012 Campaign,Abortion,Barack Obama,Health care,Ted Kennedy

Printer Friendly

comments (48)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

#1
On May 22nd, 2012 at 4:42 pm, rambler said:
Nothing like a law to allow Native American the right to use drugs coming back to bite the libs. Bill Clinton signed the bill!
#2
On May 22nd, 2012 at 4:45 pm, chapoutier said:
A trip down memory lane…
On February 10th, 2012 at 1:08 pm, chapoutier said:
Just at a quick glance, it appears that you’re taking Scalia’s statement wildly out of context.
It isn’t. Setting aside the specifics of the case, the rule that comes out of this is exactly on point here. If the court were to have made a narrow rule, limiting it only to drug use (which by the way IS an established tenet of that religion, whether you agree with it or not), you may have a point. And they could have chosen to be so narrow. In fact they do so all the time. But they did not. Which is why Employment Division v. Smith is required reading in every Con Law class since it came out.
And btw, even if the contraception law isn’t unconstitutional, that is still not the end of the story. It could still be struck down on statutory claims. I can discuss further this afternoon.
It’s almost like I know what I am talking about.
#3
On May 22nd, 2012 at 4:45 pm, stillontheroad said:
The day that the Sock Puppet and all his minions, sycophants, toadies and assorted boot lickers are run out of town on a rail come this November is going to be a Great Day, day to celebrate American Exceptionilism and a day to celebrate to demise of the Prog and all its vile manifestations.
#4
On May 22nd, 2012 at 4:47 pm, conservative hispanicsaid:
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes….
#5
On May 22nd, 2012 at 4:53 pm, Mike From Stumptownsaid:
Related Media Bias Fun Fact: On last night’s ABC, NBC and CBS nightly newscasts, one of the largest (if not the largest) religious lawsuits in American history warranted a grand total of 19 seconds of air time between the three networks.
19 seconds? I’m sure the empty suits thought that was being generous, too.
#6
On May 22nd, 2012 at 4:58 pm, J S Ragman said:
Hoist by their own petard.
#7
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:09 pm, txvet2 said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 4:45 pm, chapoutier said:
It’s almost like I know what I am talking about.
Almost. I’ll wait for Scalia to do his own explaining, but I doubt that he’ll agree with you.
#8
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:25 pm, conservative hispanicsaid:
The Church has to stand up to this third-rate Stalin wannabe. Period. Either the First Amendment stands for something or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, well…. we should take a page from the abolitionist’s handbook.
#9
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:30 pm, stillontheroad said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 4:45 pm, chapoutier said:
This is the bottom line:
“More is at stake here than the mission of all churches, including the Catholic Church, to provide social services like health care and education to everyone regardless of creed, and to do so without compromising their beliefs. At the deepest level, we are witnessing an attack on the institutions of civil society that are essential to limited government and are important buffers between the citizen and the all-powerful state.”
The bottom line here is – the SCOTUS is going to stroke this Sock Puppet care down to its roots. No matter how hard this Imp and HHS try to circumvent
the inevitability of this, it is going to be stuck down, completely. And as an added bonus, the Atheists that are rooting for Sock Puppet Care and its intrusion into religious liberty are going to eat crow so – do you like your crow with or without parsley?
#10
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:34 pm, Pasadena Phil said:
There is a good reason why it’s called “the straight and narrow”. Bad things happen to those who can’t walk straight.
#11
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:35 pm, Pasadena Phil said:
Maybe they’re Republicans. Abandoning principles for political expediency is what Republicans do best.
#12
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:44 pm, letget said:
bhocare has and is now the biggest affront on what we American’s, with or without faith, have seen in most of our lifetime! And the affront just keeps on a giving and giving. There are so many thousands of tentacles in this bill that takes over every aspect of every citizen in the US if the truth be known! We can go to jail if we don’t buy or pay per the irs? We, who have jobs, will no longer get insurance with our employer? The list goes on and on.
But the worse part, bho has and is now using funds from this krap bill to do and give to foto’s to see to it he gets funds for his re-election! WE are getting the royal BOHICA and we pay for it coming and going!
L
#13
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:52 pm, chapoutier said:
Almost. I’ll wait for Scalia to do his own explaining, but I doubt that he’ll agree with you.
He already has. You are just too blind to see.
#14
On May 22nd, 2012 at 6:00 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:
Kennedy: Hey Chuck, this Chivas with peyote buttons is the shiznit, thanks for the recipe! (hic*)
#15
On May 22nd, 2012 at 6:13 pm, Hiraghm said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:35 pm, Pasadena Phil said:
Maybe they’re Republicans. Abandoning principles for political expediency is what Republicans do best.
No… losing elections is what they do best.
#16
On May 22nd, 2012 at 6:46 pm, txvet2 said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:52 pm, chapoutier said:
Almost. I’ll wait for Scalia to do his own explaining, but I doubt that he’ll agree with you.
He already has. You are just too blind to see.
No, you’re just to arrogant to realize that you can’t read his mind. This case is years from the SCOTUS. He’ll give us his opinion when it gets there.
#17
On May 22nd, 2012 at 6:48 pm, chapoutier said:
No, you’re just to arrogant to realize that you can’t read his mind.
I can’t read his mind, but I can read his PRECEDENT. Which is way better, actually.
#18
On May 22nd, 2012 at 6:49 pm, txvet2 said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:35 pm, Pasadena Phil said:
Maybe they’re ~~Republicans~~politicians. Abandoning principles for political expediency is what ~~Republicans~~politicians do best.
Better, I think.
#19
On May 22nd, 2012 at 6:56 pm, txvet2 said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 6:48 pm, chapoutier said:
I can’t read his mind, but I can read his PRECEDENT. Which is way better, actually.
He may see differences between the two cases that you don’t. We’ll find out in due time.
#20
On May 22nd, 2012 at 7:10 pm, chapoutier said:
He may see differences between the two cases that you don’t.
He may, but it will be craven politicism rather than good jurisprudence.
#21
On May 22nd, 2012 at 7:27 pm, sbw999 said:
The Manchurian candidate will lose Obamacare when SCOTUS rules against him; and then this. In November, the 4 year socialist coup will be put down at the ballot box.
#22
On May 22nd, 2012 at 7:33 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 7:10 pm, chapoutier said:
He may, but it will be craven politicism rather than good jurisprudence.
I wonder which side you’d pick.
#23
On May 22nd, 2012 at 7:53 pm, EWTHeckman said:
With Chap, I think the answer is obvious. I’ll take Craven Politicism for $1,000, Alex.
#24
On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:03 pm, ChapBix said:
Legal scholars see the merit in challenging the mandate with RFRA, which then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced in 1993 to protect religious exercise from laws that might unintentionally restrict it.
I’m sure Sen. Charles “Don’t get between me and the TV camera” Schumer has now seen the error of his ways.
#25
On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:03 pm, Misscheryl said:
Chap reminds me of Jay Carney….
#26
On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:19 pm, ChapBix said:
#25. On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:03 pm, Misscheryl said:
Chap reminds me of Jay Carney….
Wonder why that is?
/Sarc off, just in case someone may have been confused.
#27
On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:27 pm, rightisright said:
Chap reminds me of Jay Carney….
he reminds me a a baby sparrow, always chrippin’
#28
On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:47 pm, chapoutier said:
All y’all hatas can say what you want, but I clearly know my shizzle.
#29
On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:52 pm, Misscheryl said:
8:47 pm, chapoutier said:
Chap, I’ll be the brave one. I like ya! You know I do.
#30
On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:54 pm, Misscheryl said:
Seriously Chap, Jay Carney is getting paid though, you aren’t…
#31
On May 22nd, 2012 at 9:10 pm, T-Bone said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 5:35 pm, Pasadena Phil said:
Maybe they’re Republicans. Abandoning principles for political expediency is what Republicans do best.
I thought that was what Democrats do best. But Democrats and Republicans are the same party because there is only one party. But now there are two political parties or there is a distinction between the two parties. Maybe the one party is only like the other party in some respects which makes them different but the same unless you like what one party does that both parties really do because there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Hmm. Maybe they really are different. Ah, this is all so exhausting.
#32
On May 22nd, 2012 at 9:28 pm, Pasadena Phil said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 9:10 pm, T-Bone said:
Let me make it simple for you. The Democrats are at war with conservatives. The Republicans are at war with conservatives. Democrat voters vote for liberals. Republican voters vote for liberals.
Do you see a pattern? No matter who you vote for, you end up in the same place. Unless you vote for a conservative. If you don’t like where we are, stop voting for people who war against conservatives. Stop protecting the status quo. If you keep voting for the status quo, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Does that help?
#33
On May 22nd, 2012 at 9:42 pm, T-Bone said:
But you just said Republicans abandon principle for political expediency. Why did you separate Republicans from Democrats if they are the same one party?
You can’t have it both ways. Either they are the same or they are different. Which is it?
Well, I already know the answer. I am pointing out your inconsistancy which is a huge foundational premise of your continuing argument about Republican and Democrats being the same party.
Yeah, it’s simple alright. Republicans and Democrats are not the same. Logically, thats why they have two different descriptive names, one being Republican and one being Democrat. And did I mention their platforms are different too?
That means Romney and Obama are not the same no matter how many times you say they are. It’s generalizing and it weakens your argument.
#34
On May 22nd, 2012 at 9:46 pm, Pasadena Phil said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 9:42 pm, T-Bone said:
Professor Irwin Corey, is that you? Where have you been man!
Try parsing what you just said. Diagram your sentences and see if the logic carries through.
#35
On May 22nd, 2012 at 9:52 pm, Pasadena Phil said:
T-Bone, what Marxist said the following yesterday?
Today, Klein released a concise e-book titled “Conservative Survival in the Romney Era.” For those of us who have always stressed the importance of distinguishing between the Republican Party and the conservative movement (and long before the Tea Party movement came into being), Klein’s thoughts are just what the public discourse needs right now. It’s exactly the right message and the right time for it.
Confused?
#36
On May 22nd, 2012 at 11:28 pm, txvet2 said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 7:10 pm, chapoutier said:
He may see differences between the two cases that you don’t.
He may, but it will be craven politicism rather than good jurisprudence.
So not only are you arrogant enough to think you can read his mind, you’re experienced enough at law to criticize an opinion he won’t even be rendering for months or years. What a fool you are.
#37
On May 23rd, 2012 at 7:52 am, chapoutier said:
So not only are you arrogant enough to think you can read his mind, you’re experienced enough at law to criticize an opinion he won’t even be rendering for months or years. What a fool you are.
It is not foolish to know that if someone says “x” and then turn around and say “y” that they are being inconsistent.
Stay out of these waters, txvet. They are way too deep for you.
#38
On May 23rd, 2012 at 10:41 am, RedDog said:
Related Media Bias Fun Fact: On last night’s ABC, NBC and CBS nightly newscasts, one of the largest (if not the largest) religious lawsuits in American history warranted a grand total of 19 seconds of air time between the three networks.
LOL. Yeah, the Vichy Media be doin’ wut dey do best. Schadenfreudelicious. They sure don’t like taking their own medicine do they?
#39
On May 23rd, 2012 at 11:32 am, corkie said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:47 pm, chapoutier said:
I clearly know my shizzle.
I’m not so sure that you do.
Your quoted comment from February didn’t consider the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at all.
At first glance, it seems as if that Act was specifically put in place to address the ruling that you cited. It seems as if the 1st Amendment is not the only consideration now (unlike when Scalia wrote his opinion). It seems as if the courts must now take the Act under consideration.
Certainly, correct me if I’m wrong. I haven’t spent more than 5 minutes looking at this, and I wouldn’t fault you for not knowing shizzle (nobody can know everything). However, your boasting may be unfounded.
#40
On May 23rd, 2012 at 12:32 pm, chapoutier said:
Your quoted comment from February didn’t consider the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at all.
What do you think “It could still be struck down on statutory claims. I can discuss further this afternoon.” referred to?
It seems as if the 1st Amendment is not the only consideration now (unlike when Scalia wrote his opinion).
Correct. I am not arguing the Court won’t strike down the law. I am (and originally was) arguing that Scalia should not find it unconstitutional, based on his prior precedent.
#41
On May 23rd, 2012 at 12:40 pm, corkie said:
On May 23rd, 2012 at 12:32 pm, chapoutier said:
What do you think “It could still be struck down on statutory claims. I can discuss further this afternoon.” referred to?
You might have been referring to the Act. It was never discussed later in that afternoon so I didn’t know and missed that point. Regardless, it seems as if you know your shizzle. Thanks for clarifying.
#42
On May 23rd, 2012 at 12:45 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 4:45 pm, chapoutier said:
A trip down memory lane…
On February 10th, 2012 at 1:08 pm, chapoutier said:
… even if the contraception law isn’t unconstitutional, that is still not the end of the story. It could still be struck down on statutory claims…
It’s almost like I know what I am talking about.
Kudos, chapoutier!
#43
On May 23rd, 2012 at 12:48 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:
On May 22nd, 2012 at 8:47 pm, chapoutier said:
All y’all hatas can say what you want, but I clearly know my shizzle.
#44
On May 23rd, 2012 at 1:09 pm, Alec Rawls said:
If the plaintiffs try to base their case on the ’93 law they will lose. Congress cannot restrict its own future actions. Only the Constitution can restrict Congress.
#45
On May 23rd, 2012 at 1:31 pm, rocketman said:
***
The Catholic Church correctly identifies the target of Comrade Obama’s pro abortion regime. Their real goal is to have taxpayers fund the abortion producing drugs that cause the death of the baby a day after conception. It’s their ultimate “birth control” dream.
***
The Good Comrade’s first executive order was signed the day after He took office. It repealed the longtime prohibition against using U.S. Foreign Aid Women’s “Health” funds to pay for out of country abortions. Our bucks have been funding this evil for 3 1/2 years already.
***
Just “hepping out the poor women”–except for the 50 percent of the babies murdered who happened to be female. What a fine compassionate bunch of liberals / socialists / statists / marxists / communists! Unlike the evil conservatives who just want women to die.
***
John Bibb
***
#46
On May 23rd, 2012 at 9:46 pm, gmatt2003 said:
This is in no way only a “Catholic” issue. It is about our 1st Amendment Right to freely EXERCISE our religious beliefs – not merely the freedom to hold private religious views.
Why do you suppose the Founders made this the VERY FIRST item in the Bill of Rights? (It is the foundation for all of our other rights.)
#47
On May 23rd, 2012 at 10:08 pm, gmatt2003 said:
To better explain: Religious Freedom and the free exercise thereof is the natural outcome and expectation of the Declaration of Independence’s statement that “we are endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights” – i.e. Our Rights are granted by God, not Government(s).
Without Freedom of Religion, all our other “rights” are defined by and granted by Government.
For example, if we can’t exercise our religious belief in private property (the original intention of the “pursuit of happiness” phrase), what is to prevent the Government from seizing our property?
People, please do not dismiss this issue as simply a “Catholic” one. (And I am not a Catholic.) The 1st Amendment protects the rights of all believers and non-believers too.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

#Catholic lawsuit against #Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy

Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer

See what others have said

Comments