Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The most influential Federal court in the country outside the Supreme Court, ruled Friday that a section of Obamacare was unconstitutional. The requirement that employers must provide health care insurance, including birth control, is a violation of employers' 1st amendment right to free exercise of religion, where their religion forbids birth control pills.
Remember that liberals have long maintained that since the USSC found one section of Obamacare (penalties for non-compliance) "constitutional" by rewriting them from the bench, that made all of Obamacare constitutional. Now that a Federal court has found another part unconstitutional, those liberals will now agree that all of Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Remember too, that while early versions of the Obamacare bill had a clause ("severability") saying that it one part was struck down by the courts, the rest would remain in force... but in the final version that was actually passed, that clause was taken out. So, if the courts find this new part unconstitutional, by law the entire thing must be thrown out.
So far, at least two Appeals Courts have found the birth-control mandate unconstitutional, while at least two others have found it constitutional. This sets up a likely case before the Supreme Court in the future, to decide the matter.
Appeals court strikes down Obamacare birth control mandate
Posted by
CNN's Greg Clary
Nov. 2, 2013
Washington (CNN) – In a ruling likely to set the stage for a battle in the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal appeals court has struck down an Obamacare mandate requiring some businesses to provide insurance coverage for birth control.
A key provision of Affordable Care Act championed by President Obama requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide medical insurance and coverage for contraceptives and pregnancy-related care. The companies must provide the coverage or pay a substantial financial penalty.
Last edited by CaseyB; 11-02-2013 at 03:50 PM..
Reason: copyright violation
Remember that liberals have long maintained that since the USSC found one section of Obamacare (penalties for non-compliance) "constitutional" by rewriting them from the bench, that made all of Obamacare constitutional.
I don't remember that. I think you're making it up.
Quote:
Remember too, that while early versions of the Obamacare bill had a clause ("severability") saying that it one part was struck down by the courts, the rest would remain in force... but in the final version that was actually passed, that clause was taken out. So, if the courts find this new part unconstitutional, by law the entire thing must be thrown out.
Absolutely false. Just because there is no severability clause in a bill doesn't mean the law is therefore inseverable. Outside of an inseverability clause, whether a particular portion of a law is severable or not is for the court's judgment.
I found out about this on Facebook after someone I am friends with was b itching about her employer having "control" over her healthcare.
She is a huge ObamaCare supporter. She is okay with the government making me purchase healthcare or pay a fine. Having control over my wallet and my body but God forbid her employer decides that they won't pay for her birth control pills!!!
Fortunately, the law in the United States does not depend on what leftist fanatics such as yourself, can remember or forget.
Quote:
Absolutely false.
Actually, it's absolutely true. Insurance companies raised hell at the idea that, say, the participation mandate might get thrown out, and only people with chronic illnesses would sign up while healthy people wouldn't. They refused any participation unless the severability clause was removed. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...own-out-video/
Aside from that, your evaluation was correct.
Quote:
Outside of an inseverability clause, whether a particular portion of a law is severable or not is for the court's judgment.
Actually, a law without a severability clause falls squarely into the jurisdiction of a court. Many such laws have been struck down in their entirety due to one part being found unconstitutional. Including Obamacare, when a Federal District Court found the participation mandate unconstitutional. The judge in the case wrote specifically that, since there was no severability clause, he had to strike down the whole thing. Florida Judge Rules Against ObamaCare, Calls Individual Mandate Unconstitutional - Forbes
You seem to be unable to respond to posts you don't like, other than by immediately shouting blatantly false allegations and hoping nobody debunks them. Have you been doing this for long?
Welcome to City-Data, where liberals can no longer get away with this tactic.
I found out about this on Facebook after someone I am friends with was b itching about her employer having "control" over her healthcare.
She is a huge ObamaCare supporter. She is okay with the government making me purchase healthcare or pay a fine. Having control over my wallet and my body but God forbid her employer decides that they won't pay for her birth control pills!!!
Some of the more desperate liberals on various news shows, are claiming that this employer is "denying his employees access to" birth control.
Really?? The employer is blockading entrance to doctors' offices who can prescribe the pills" The employer is somehow preventing the employee from going to the pharmacies where they are available?
The more these liberals lose, the more hysterical their shouting gets.
Fortunately, the law in the United States does not depend on what leftist fanatics such as yourself, can remember or forget.
What are you talking about? The disagreement you're referencing here was about what liberals said, not about upon what US law depends. Again, I don't remember liberals saying that. I'm a liberal. I never said that and neither did any of my liberal friends. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that liberals said what you claim they said.
Quote:
Actually, a law without a severability clause falls squarely into the jurisdiction of a court.
Why did you start this sentence with "actually"? I never disagreed with this^. It's a true statement. In fact, all laws fall squarely under the jurisdiction of our courts. That's true whether they have a severability clause, an inseverability clause, or no clause dealing with severability at all.
Quote:
Many such laws have been struck down in their entirety due to one part being found unconstitutional.
Yes, you are right - and I never said anything to the contrary.
Quote:
Including Obamacare, when a Federal District Court found the participation mandate unconstitutional. The judge in the case wrote specifically that, since there was no severability clause, he had to strike down the whole thing.
Again, your contention that lacking a severability clause renders any and all parts of a law inseverable is 100% false. It is more than possible for certain parts of a law to be severable and other parts to be inseveralbe (whether a severability clause exists or not).
Whether the Individual Mandate in Obamacare is inseverable says nothing whatsoever about whether the Birth Control Provision in Obamacare is severable.
Really good evidence of this can be found in THIS CASE. Here, the court ruled one part of Obamacare unconstitutional (the Birth Control Part), but did not find that it therefore rendered the whole of Obamacare unconstitutional. In other words, the court here found the Birth Control Provision to in fact be severable.
Quote:
You seem to be unable to respond to posts you don't like, other than by immediately shouting blatantly false allegations and hoping nobody debunks them. Have you been doing this for long? Welcome to City-Data, where liberals can no longer get away with this tactic.
Hahaha. I simply responded to the falsehoods in your post by pointing them out and correcting them. I hope my further explanation was more helpful in clarifying how you were wrong.
Last edited by hammertime33; 11-02-2013 at 01:22 PM..
So my new company has a mixture of owners, in order to meet their religious needs, we feel no choice but to inform you that your new health plan does not include access to medicine, or doctors, as god will heal you or not as he deems fit.
Health insurance DOES cover 2 aspirin. We recommend all women keep them lodged between their knees, we aren't monsters like company X, see? We provide birth control!
Seriously this is moronic, you do not get to shove your religious beliefs onto others. I am amazed this court decided to try this, the supreme court will smack them around I suspect.
So my new company has a mixture of owners, in order to meet their religious needs, we feel no choice but to inform you that your new health plan does not include access to medicine, or doctors, as god will heal you or not as he deems fit.
Health insurance DOES cover 2 aspirin. We recommend all women keep them lodged between their knees, we aren't monsters like company X, see? We provide birth control!
Seriously this is moronic, you do not get to shove your religious beliefs onto others. I am amazed this court decided to try this, the supreme court will smack them around I suspect.
It'll be interesting when it gets to the Supreme Court. So far we have the DC and the 10th Circuit saying it's unconstitutional whereas the 6th and 3rd Circuits have held it is constitutional.
Seriously this is moronic, you do not get to shove your religious beliefs onto others.
Very true. But that's what Obamacare tried to do to this company, imposing a belief onto them that birth control is OK, contrary to the owner's own religion. And the DC Circuit smacked them down for it.
It'll be interesting when it gets to the Supreme Court. So far we have the DC and the 10th Circuit saying it's unconstitutional whereas the 6th and 3rd Circuits have held it is constitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Very true. But that's what Obamacare tried to do to this company, imposing a belief onto them that birth control is OK, contrary to the owner's own religion. And the DC Circuit smacked them down for it.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will do the same.
Or they will side with the courts that have ruled it constitutional.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
