Supreme Court Upholds Pro-Abortion, Pro-Rationing Obamacare
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/28/12
www.lifenews.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-pro-abortion-pro-rationing-obamacare/
The Supreme Court has issued a 5-4 decision essentially upholding the Obamacare law that pro-life groups regard as the biggest expansion of abortion and abortion funding since Roe v. Wade.
The law also drew strong opposition from the pro-life community not only over abortion but because the legislation also promotes rationing of medical care that could lead to involuntarily denying lifesaving treatment.
The Supreme Court has incorrectly ruled that Obamacare is constitutional, pro-life groups are saying in response to the decision. They are pointing out that the need is greater now than ever to defeat pro-abortion President Barack Obama and elect a pro-life Senate that will join the House in repealing the legislation.
Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, told LifeNews, “The Supreme Court today officially declared that our current government pays no heed to the Constitution. Neither the President, nor Congress, nor the Supreme Court appears willing to protect life or liberty. If ever there were a time in history when the American people needed to be informed voters on Election Day, this is it.”
Priests for Life filed a lawsuit in February against the Health and Human Services mandate that all employers provide contraception to their employees free of charge. That lawsuit will continue, Pavone said.
“Priests for Life will remain vigilant on the issue of contraception,” Father Pavone said. “The mandate is a brazen attack on our religious liberty. Today’s ruling on Obamacare was a setback, but it is not the end of the battle.”
Father Shenan J. Boquet, president of Human Life International, also condemned the decision.
“Today’s ruling is confusing and very disappointing, but is in no way the end of the battle against the many injustices of the ‘Affordable Care Act,’ also known as ‘Obamacare.’ We are confident that the 12 pending federal lawsuits brought by 43 different organizations against the Obama administration’s HHS department will be validated by the Supreme Court, and that religious freedom will again be upheld in law,” he said.
He continued, “We remain very concerned about the many serious moral failings of the health care law, which have sparked a wave of opposition rallies across the nation. Under the Affordable Care Act, abortions are free of charge, but life saving medicine and treatments require a co-pay. All Americans who are on government subsidized healthcare plans (which would be almost all Americans) will be forced to pay for abortion through a hidden surcharge that insurance companies are not even allowed to tell their customers about, except in the initial sign up process. This is how radically pro-abortion the Obama administration really is, and its ‘health care reform’ policy reflects this radical stance.”
Leading pro-life lawmakers were also very disappointed with the decision.
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio said: “What’s important to remember is that what the Court rules on is whether something is constitutional or not, not whether it’s a good idea. And while the Court has said that the law is constitutional, it remains a bad idea for our economy, and I hope that in the fall we will have a majority here that will not just repeal this law, but replace it with real solutions that will insure more people and cost a lot less money.”
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell added: “Today’s decision makes one thing clear: Congress must act to repeal this misguided law. Obamacare has not only limited choices and increased health care costs for American families, it has made it harder for American businesses to hire. Today’s decision does nothing to diminish the fact that Obamacare’s mandates, tax hikes, and Medicare cuts should be repealed and replaced with common sense reforms that lower costs and that the American people actually want. It is my hope that with new leadership in the White House and Senate, we can enact these step-by-step solutions and prevent further damage from this terrible law.”
Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, a Republican has worked to drop the abortion-funding component of Obamacare, was also disappointed.
“While I am deeply disappointed that the law was upheld, I continue to believe that it is bad policy. Just because the Supreme Court declares something Constitutional does not mean that it is a good idea. The health care law is not the reform Americans need or deserve,” he said.
The Alliance Defense Fund and allied legal organizations together filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida on behalf of numerous pro-life medical groups. The brief argues that Americans should not be compelled to pay for other people’s elective abortions as required by ObamaCare.
ADF has also filed several other lawsuits challenging an Obama administration mandate under the plan that requires religious organizations to provide and pay for insurance coverage of abortion-causing drugs and devices for their employees regardless of whether the religious employers object on moral or religious grounds.
With Justice Roberts’ support Supreme Court upholds Obama health care law
by Ben Johnson
Thu Jun 28, 2012 08:54 EST
www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-upholds-obama-health-care-law
Kathleen Gilbert contributed to this breaking story. The story was updated at 11:48 a.m. EDT to include the reaction from Bill Donohue, and at 1:50 p.m. EDT to include clarification on the Medicaid aspect of this ruling.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 28, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Supreme Court has ruled the insurance requirement embedded in President Obama’s federal health care law is constitutional in a 5-4 decision Thursday morning.
The High Court’s swing vote came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. He joined the court’s liberal wing to uphold the controversial mandate.
Although the justices ruled that requiring individuals to purchase insurance violates the Commerce Clause, a slim majority upheld it as part of the federal government’s taxing power.
The ruling punches another hole in the promises the president made while campaigning for his signature health care reform bill. Speaking with George Stephanopoulos before the bill’s passage, President Obama said the new law “is absolutely not a tax increase.”
Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented from the majority. Their strongly worded dissent found, “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”
“The act before us exceeds federal power,” they wrote, deeming the entire statute “inoperative.”
Justice Ginsburg, however, would have upheld the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Her opinion failed to obtain the needed votes.
Justices also voted to limit the federal government’s coercion of states under Medicaid. The opinion states that the federal government may offer states funding to increase state health care programs under the new law. “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding,” the justices ruled.
The decision dashed opponents’ hopes that the massive act, which Obama signed into law in March 2010, would be struck down in whole or in part.
Although the law’s provision forcing religious groups to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs at no co-pay survives for now, the Supreme Court did not rule on its constitutionality. However, a series of lawsuits winding their way to the Court will place that issue before the bench. “ObamaCare may have survived, but it is by no means a lock that the HHS mandate will,” Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. “It is one thing to levy a tax, quite another to level the First Amendment.”
The ruling has invigorated Republicans, who look forward to campaigning on the law’s repeal in November’s election. “If it is deemed to stand…we’ll have to have a president, and I’m that one, that’s gonna get rid of ObamaCare,” Mitt Romney told a campaign stop in Virginia earlier this week.
An Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted June 14-18 found only one-third of Americans support the health care law, while 47 percent oppose it. Nearly twice as many said they strongly opposed the bill as those who strongly supported it, 32-17 percent.
Justice Elena Kagan did not recuse herself from the case, although as Solicitor General she oversaw a department charged with preparing the administration’s responses to legal challenges against the health care law. Her hand-chosen deputy, Neal Katyal, wrote in a memo uncovered by Judicial Watch, “we will bring Elena in as needed.”
Robert’s is a member of the parish of St. Patrick in D.C. — a N.O. parish.
Says a lot.
He and his family should be shunned by all decent Catholics.
With the outright CINO’s it would be pointless, but Roberts pretends to be Catholic.
What I want an answer to from him and all the weasels in the Curia is how is it that it’s immoral for their organizations to have to pay for abortions, etc through insurance but it’s perfectly fine that those of us that are running businesses pay for abortions for our employees.
I want permanent, public absolution in writing.
If they can’t do that, and they should not be able to do that, they need to get real about this.
Roberts is a traitor. A traitor to his faith and his country, worthy of nothing but contempt.
I’m far too angry right now to comment any further in the presence of other Catholics.
I was/am angry, too. But I had a wine cooler tonight and that helped:)
I think Roberts had his own weird reasons, as disappointing as they initially are. But he did say something interesting:
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
It is almost like Roberts is telling us that we have the power to change this thing, if only we had the huevos to really do something about it. I may be reading more into this, I get the feeling that Roberts might be setting Obama up for a fall farther down the road. Both are very smart men. This is a chess game. Only time will tell.
Roberts took the heat today for a reason. Why? Something else is going on.
Despite my intense sadness right now, I am still trying to have hope. At least the government hasn’t taxed the sunrises and sunsets yet. God is still with us. He is greater than any government, president or supreme court judge.
Rubio: IRS to ‘come after’ uninsured
By MJ LEE | 6/28/12 11:56 AM EDT
Sen. Marco Rubio said Thursday that the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President Barack Obama’s health care law means that the IRS will now “come after” Americans.
“I hope people back home fully understand what this means, and here’s what this means: It is now unlawful for you not to buy health insurance, and if you do not buy it, you have an IRS problem,” the Florida Republican said on Fox News. “If you do not buy health insurance, the IRS is going to be on your back and chasing you. They’re going to take away your refund, they’re going to increase your fees, they’re going to come after you.”
Continue Reading Text Size-+reset(Also on POLITICO: GOP to renew health law repeal effort)
Rubio argued that millions of Americans will face being “out of compliance” with the IRS for not having health insurance coverage.
“Somehow the Obama administration thinks that’s a victory,” he said. “That’s everything you need to know about that administration.”
The high court ruled Thursday that Congress did not overstep its power by requiring almost all Americans to buy health insurance. The justices ruled that Congress has the authority to impose the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate through its taxing power.
Bush’s Chief “Justice” stuck a dagger in our hearts…..so much for “conservatism”.
Bush 41 gave us Souter, Bush 43 gave us Roberts(a “Catholic” in “full communion”)
ALL branches of our government are arms of Satan.
“Republicans and Democrats are the two wings on the same bird of prey.”
——–Patrick J Buchanan
Salvation is from Catholicism, not conservatism, or americanism, liberalism, nazism, socialism, communism, etc.(They are, in reality, all variants of the same plan.)
LIBERTY….The god that FAILED VIVA CRISTO REY!!!!!!!!!!
AmChurch loves the decision:
[The National Catholic Reporter editorializes]: Upheld health care law a blessing for the U.S.
Jun. 28, 2012
An NCR Editorial
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the most important piece of legislation enacted in past years, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, resisting pressure from conservative ideologues to overturn a law that was passed by a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives, a supermajority in the U.S. Senate, and signed by a duly elected president. The grounds for the decision were less important than the fact that the court understood it had to take seriously its frequently cited, but often ignored, commitment to judicial restraint. Read more (if you please): ncronline.org/news/politics/editorial-upheld-health-care-law-blessing-us
Catholic Health Association ‘pleased’ with Supreme Court ruling
Jun. 28, 2012
Tom Gallagher
The following statement is being released by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States:
The Catholic Health Association is taking time to carefully read and evaluate the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and may have additional comments once our review is complete.
We are pleased that, based on an initial read of the ruling, the ACA has been found constitutional and will remain in effect. CHA has long supported health reform that expands access and coverage to everyone. We signed onto amicus briefs encouraging the Court to find in favor of the ACA’s individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion.
As the ruling is examined, Catholic-sponsored health care providers will continue to lead health care transformation — finding new and better ways to provide compassionate, high-quality care while strengthening the communities we serve. Read more (if you please): ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/catholic-health-association-pleased-supreme-court-ruling
The USCCCP issues a non-statement about the decision as well as other aspects of Obamacare and gets into trouble for its press release with the AmChurch chorus:
U.S. bishops continue to complain about the Affordable Care Act
by Tom Gallagher on Jun. 28, 2012
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/us-bishops-continue-complain-about-affordable-care-act
The U.S. bishops’ press release this morning [ usccb.org/news/2012/12-119.cfm ] continues to complain about the Affordable Health Care Act.
“Today the United States Supreme Court issued a decision upholding as a tax the provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires individuals to purchase a health plan—the so-called “individual mandate.”
For nearly a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have been and continue to be consistent advocates for comprehensive health care reform to ensure access to life-affirming health care for all, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable.Although the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) did not participate in these cases and took no position on the specific questions presented to the Court, USCCB’s position on health care reform generally and on ACA particularly is a matter of public record.The bishops ultimately opposed final passage of ACA for several reasons.”
The statement lists the “fundamental flaws” and then concludes:
“Following enactment of ACA, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has not joined in efforts to repeal the law in its entirety, and we do not do so today.The decision of the Supreme Court neither diminishes the moral imperative to ensure decent health care for all, nor eliminates the need to correct the fundamental flaws described above.We therefore continue to urge Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, legislation to fix those flaws.”
The USCCB’s objections that NCR omitted:
First, ACA allows use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions and for plans that cover such abortions, contradicting longstanding federal policy.The risk we identified in this area has already materialized, particularly in the initial approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of “high risk” insurance pools that would have covered abortion.
Second, the Act fails to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protection, both within and beyond the abortion context.We have provided extensive analyses of ACA’s defects with respect to both abortion and conscience.The lack of statutory conscience protections applicable to ACA’s new mandates has been illustrated in dramatic fashion by HHS’s “preventive services” mandate, which forces religious and other employers to cover sterilization and contraception, including abortifacient drugs.
Third, ACA fails to treat immigrant workers and their families fairly.ACA leaves them worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money.This undermines the Act’s stated goal of promoting access to basic life-affirming health care for everyone, especially for those most in need.
usccb.org/news/2012/12-119.cfm
I can see why NCR wanted to omit numbers 1 and 2.
Those of us that can keep a civil tongue in their heads (I don’t think I can at the moment) need to encourage this fledgling show of Catholicism in numbers 1 and 2 and push for them to follow through. It’s not much to start with, but it is something…
Earl Warren Rides Again
by Scott P. Richert • June 28, 2012
Chief Justice John Roberts was initially nominated by President George W. Bush to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the country’s high court. So, in the wake of today’s ObamaCare decision, authored by Roberts, it’s no surprise that many who wanted to see the Court drive a stake through the heart of the most overreaching piece of federal legislation in American history are comparing Roberts to O’Connor. Joined by liberal Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, Roberts can fairly be said to be the Court’s new swing vote.
In the far-reaching implications of the ObamaCare ruling, however, John Roberts has revealed that he is no Sandra Day O’Connor but a latter-day Earl Warren. Today’s decision not only upheld ObamaCare but provided the framework for an unprecedented expansion of federal power. If you’ve liked the Court’s Commerce Clause decisions over the decades, you’re going to love what the Court can do with Congress’s power “to lay and collect Taxes.”
The Syllabus of the decision provided by the Court cuts through the turgid text of Roberts’ 59-page decision and tells us all we need to know: The individual mandate of ObamaCare could not be justified under the Commerce Clause, because the Commerce Clause can only regulate existing commercial activity, not compel individuals “to become active in commerce.” But Congress and the President want to do precisely that, by forcing individuals without health insurance to purchase it, and so Justice Roberts (with a little help from the Obama administration’s lawyers) found the justification elsewhere: Congress can levy a tax on those who refuse to purchase health insurance.
Roberts portrays his decision as a check on federal power—if the Court had upheld the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, it “would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” But it’s unclear whom he thinks he is fooling. The administration’s lawyers and Roberts turned to the power “to lay and collect Taxes” precisely because the Commerce Clause had already been stretched to the limit. With today’s ruling, Congress has been given the green light to do something that even the most imaginative interpretation of the Commerce Clause would not allow: to compel the supposedly free citizens of the United States to purchase anything that Congress deems in those citizens’ best interest—or to compel them to purchase one thing rather than another. All Congress has to do is to pass legislation levying a tax on those who, say, fail to purchase smoke detectors for their homes, or who insist on purchasing a car that runs on gasoline over one that runs on electricity.
On second thought, comparing Roberts to Earl Warren may be unfair—to Earl Warren, that is. Warren could only dream of writing decisions that would give the federal government this kind of power over the everyday lives of American citizens. Roberts has turned that dream into a reality—and into a nightmare for anyone outside of the ruling elite in Washington, D.C.
www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2012/06/28/earl-warren-rides-again/
Quick Thoughts on the Supreme Court
by Tom Piatak • June 28, 2012
Putting together the Court’s two most notable recent decisions, the Arizona immigration decision and the Obamacare decision, leads to this unsettling conclusion: there is virtually nothing the states can do on their own, and there is virtually nothing the federal government cannot do. If that is what the Founders intended, I’m a unicorn.
We also now have further confirmation of another unsettling pattern: Republican presidents will offset the nomination of any reliable conservative to the Supreme Court with someone who is not a reliable conservative. Thus we had Reagan appoint Antonin Scalia, but also Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. (In fairness to Reagan, I should note that the initial appointment for Kennedy’s seat was Robert Bork, whose rejection by the Senate was one of the most consequential acts undertaken by the Senate in my lifetime). Bush Senior appointed Clarence Thomas, but also David S0uter. And Bush Junior appointed Samuel Alito, but also John Roberts. And it should be noted that if Bush Junior had gotten his way, his record would be even worse, since his first choice for Alito’s seat was Harriet Miers. By contrast, no Democratic president has appointed someone who was not a reliable liberal to the Supreme Court since John F. Kennedy nominated Byron White.
www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2012/06/28/quick-thoughts-on-the-supreme-court/
After the Supreme Court defeat…
By Phil Lawler | June 28, 2012
www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=340
Two quick thoughts on today’s astonishing, disastrous, incomprehensible Supreme Court ruling:
•Now it’s up to us. It would have been nice if the Supreme Court had eliminated the latest and greatest threat to religious freedom in America. But it didn’t happen. Now either we Catholics Americans rally to fight the political battle and defeat the HHS mandate—which, at this point, almost certainly means defeating Obama–or we live with the consequences.
•The next time someone says that pro-lifers must support Republicans to ensure good Supreme-Court appointments, mention the name Roberts. Then mention the names Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Fool me once, shame on you. But fool me eight times…
As if this isn’t torture enough, the news channels keep rolling the same footage of that insufferable wench Pelosi… over and over and over. When it’s not her, it’s Maobama.
I think I’m going to rip my eyeballs out.
It helped.
Cheers!!
YOU have a TV in your house?!
So do I, but I’d never admit it.
YOU have a TV in your house?!
So do I, but I’d never admit it.
I’m starting to think that the people who only pay attention to stuff like Dancing with the Stars, sports and those horrible housewive shows are on to something.
What good is caring about current events, your country, your fellow man, your church etc. when this horrible devolution not only continues on, but seems to be exponentially gathering speed? Nowadays, in real life, the bad guys nearly always win.
I think I’m going to start following “Snookie” (I’ve seen her in magazines at the checkout line) American Idol and college lacross – or some other obscure sports-addict indulgence.
Sure I’ll be much stupider, but I’ll also be much happier.
I told my 12-yr-old to just park it on the sofa, watch AGT and eat chips all day. In 10 years, you can tell the gov, “I too fat to work” and they’ll send you a check. He didn’t believe me.
I told my 12-yr-old to just park it on the sofa, watch AGT and eat chips all day. In 10 years, you can tell the gov, “I too fat to work” and they’ll send you a check. He didn’t believe me.
Along with “Snookie,” that’s another regular site at the checkout line – the welfare cows spending OUR money on a wholesome diet of Fruit Loops, Cheese Doodles and grape soda.
Not only do they get free food, but most of them also get free housing, free education, free healthcare and free cash money at tax time for every child they’ve had with any number of fathers.
What was the subject of this thread again?
What was the subject of this thread again?
Oh yeah. The thread. It’s about our pinko fag bishops who got us ObamaCare in the first place. It’s their compassion for those less fortunate that justifies stealing from working folks and subsidizing couch potatoes. If my son gets fat and knocks up “Snookie,” we should give them a free ride. It’s for the children, you heartless selfish cracker scum! It’s just unfortunate that some proaborts got their druthers with the bill.
Name me one AmChurch bishop who speaks out against fag clergy, homo sex-ed in “Catholic” schools, and Socialism. I’ll call that one good.
In the meantime, watch what happens over the next 4 months. They want to help reelect Hussein. They will often rail against Romney on ObamaCare, budget cuts, and amnesty for alien invaders while intermittently wringing their hands over “religious freedom.”