Sorry, I didn’t see your comment on the other thread.
OptionsTrader on February 15, 2012 at 1:33 PM

No problem, it was pretty late :)

So, unless there is something I’m missing (and, IANAL, so please, I am definitely interested) RFRA should apply to this federal mandate.

cptacek on February 15, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I think you are exactly in the right area of how a challenge might proceed. Sorry, I didn’t see your comment on the other thread. In “Catholic Charities v Superior Court” (2004). The CA Supreme Court ruled against the RCC who sued over a contraception law that covered Catholic Charities, though not actual churches.

Employment Division v Smith was one key to the 6-1 ruling in CA. Though as you point out RFRA didn’t apply to the states, but does currently apply to the Fed.

I’m not a lawyer either, but a RCC challenge in federal court on ObamaCare’s contraception mandate would seem to cause the court to consider two cases among several 1.) Gonzalez v UDV (as you point out) which applied RFRA to the DEA and 2.) Alamo Foundation v Labor, which identified limits on which parts of an evangelical organization received religious exemptions.

A win for the RCC based on federal law wouldn’t be a 1st Amendment win. Based on RFRA, they’d still be subject to the various contraception requirements in each state.

Uppereastside on February 15, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Lighten up, Francis.

besides the obvious violation of the constitution represented by obamacare and romenycare they both point out the very big problem with states and the federal government mandating certain types of procedures and drugs HAVE to be covered under acceptable insurance plans. it’s all these mandates for coverage individuals might not want or need( or mandates that violate their beliefs in some way) that help drive up health care and insurance costs. there really is no true free market for consumers to chose the coverage they desire and can afford- even before romenycare. complaining that the free market ruined healthcare so big brother has to step in is an outrageous lie.

insurance costs in MA have skyrocketed under romneycare.previously, they were already among the highest in the country anyway due to all the things that the state required policies to cover. romney kept up lying about how costs would be driven down. how stupid is this guy or is he just a liar? the concept of insurance has been around for sometime and the math involved is quite simple. it was clear that it was rather covering everyone by taking unfairly and disproportionately from the productive was the real intent-it’s wealth distribution pure and simple. they had to know it wouldn’t drive down costs especially with the health connector overlords in charge- being all insurance company executives- deciding what would be covered and who would get waivers. the health connector was and is the precursor of the great and might sibelius-waiver goddess and pope kitty I of health care.

if they were really concerned with driving down costs they’d dump the mandates-by making policies more streamlined, portable and providing for options the consumer may choose for themselves. health insurance( it’s not really health care is it? it’s all about insurance companies geting as much money out of the productive to cover the poor and unproductive) would be more affordable and thus available to more people.that’s not done with mandates- it’s done with freedom to choose. but it wouldn’t break the system and make socialized medicine the tyrannical cure. the mandate itself is a sop to the insurance companies to participate in their own destruction.

it’s all a sham- they all want socialized health care not socialized insurance. obamacare and romneycare were meant to break the constitution and destroy the quasi-free market insurance already in existence.

willard -give it up.

Next up:

Mandate that car insurance pay for oil changes every 3000 miles, new brakes every 15,000 miles and new tires every 40,000 miles.

Why not? Oil changes, new brakes and tires will lead to safer cars and fewer accidents, which will lead to cheaper insurance. Right?

angryed on February 15, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Not “pay for oil changes”, -should read ‘provide free oil changes’. That does much better in the focus groups.

You know, when I thought this mandate merely violated the Constitution I couldn’t see what all the hubbub was about. But now that I realize it also violates some law I’ve never heard of, I’m kind of P.O.’d.

rogaineguy on February 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

It is important because “Employment Division vs. Smith” pretty much stripped away religious liberty, and they passed a law to rectify that.

Now I want to know why the Democratic women aren’t worried about the access and affordablility of contraception to those women who work for employers who have Obamacare waivers. Isn’t there some way Obama could mandate someone else to pay for these poor union women?/sarc.