Photo Credit: LifeNews By Steven Ertelt.
So just how is the Obama administration spinning the Supreme Court’s decision today that dealt it a devastating blow? Now that President Barcack Obama can’t force Hobby Lobby and other companies and businesses to pay for abortion-causing drugs, he’s wanting to force Americans to pay for birth control and very early drugs that may cause abortions.
From the Daily Caller:
The White House has quickly converted the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision into a campaign-trail wedge issue, by calling on Congress to continue providing abortion-related drugs to a small number of women who work for Catholic employers.
Because of the court’s decision, women “no longer have access to free contraception coverage… simply because of the religious views held by their bosses,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Read more from this story HERE.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Photo Credit: Daily Signal After Hobby Lobby, Another Part of the Obamacare Mandate Could Fall
By Elizabeth Slattery.
Today’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which are for-profit companies, raises questions about the fate of the HHS mandate accommodation for which certain religious non-profit employers are eligible.
Under the accommodation, non-profit employers self-certify to their insurance provider or third-party administrator that they have a religious objection to providing or paying for certain drugs and devices, and this initiates the process of the insurance company or third-party administrator providing the mandated coverage to employees. Just like the HHS mandate itself, this accommodation has been challenged by dozens of employers for violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the government from substantially burdening free exercise unless it can show that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.
In today’s ruling—which deals only with closely held corporations—the existence of this accommodation was proof to a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court that there are less restrictive means for the government to advance the compelling interest behind the HHS mandate. The Supreme Court did not reach whether the accommodation itself complies with RFRA, since it was not an issue addressed by the parties. Further, a hallmark of the Roberts Court is taking incremental steps toward an eventual goal (as it did in recent years with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act). Thus, in the long run, the Court likewise may rule the accommodation violates the free exercise of non-profit groups.
Read more from this story HERE.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Photo Credit: APObama Racking Up Judicial Losses
By Ben Wolfgang.
President Obama suffered two final defeats in the Supreme Court on Monday, capping a 2013-2014 term in which the justices delivered several judicial hits to the White House while taking a firm stand against the unchecked power of the state.
The administration’s losses on Obamacare rules and compulsory union dues served as a rebuke on the Supreme Court’s final day after months of judicial decisions to rein in big government on issues such as snooping without a warrant, campaign finance restrictions and Mr. Obama’s recess appointment powers.
Just as damning was the way the court ruled in some of those cases. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. corralled unanimous votes on privacy and recess appointments — cases that dealt stinging defeats to Mr. Obama, himself a lawyer and former lecturer on constitutional law.
In the more than five years that Mr. Obama has been in office, the court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times.
During the eight years each in the administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the government lost on unanimous votes 15 times and 23 times, respectively. That puts the Obama administration on pace to greatly exceed recent predecessors in terms of judicial losses.
Read more from this story HERE.
