Legal team warns of ramifications of wrong decision at Supreme Court

In its Supreme Court battle over Obamacare’s abortion-pill mandate, the government wants to “determine what is in fact a sin,” contends a religious-rights legal group.

The high court has agreed to hear the case of the Denver-based Little Sisters of the Poor nuns, who refused to comply with the requirement that the insurance policies for their employees cover abortion pills.

The nuns have refused to sign over the responsibility to their insurance company, arguing it also would be a violation of their faith to facilitate someone else committing a sin.

Now a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of dozens of clients charges the government is seeking to become the arbiter of religious beliefs.

The group’s chief counsel, Richard Thompson, called the mandate “a monumental attack on religious liberty.”

“If this appeal is lost, the government becomes the head of every religious denomination in the country by its assumed authority to determine what is in fact a sin,” he said.

The brief argues that the neither the government nor the lawyers on the Supreme Court bench “can determine whether an act does or does not violate a person’s religious beliefs.”

“Rather, the Supreme Court must accept the non-profits’ assertions that the notification requirement is indeed against their religion.”

To accept otherwise, the brief says, “is to supplant the church and the Bible with the government, allowing the Supreme Court and the government to interpret [tenets] of faith.

“This slippery slope would subject all religious exercise to the whim of the government’s approval.”

The brief points out that it’s already been decided that the fines for noncompliance are a substantial burden, leaving essentially the question of “whether compliance is actually against the petitioners’ religion.”

“This is something that is for petitioners to determine, not the court,” the Thomas More Law Center says.

“The court is not the arbiter of sacred Scripture and cannot determine whether the notification form and letter are attenuated enough from the provision of contraceptives that they do not substantially burden petitioners’ religion,” the brief says. “Delving into this inquiry requires the court to interpret petitioners’ religious beliefs on the morality of the different levels of complicity with sin.

“Therefore, the court can only determine whether petitioners are being compelled to do something that violates their faith – here, filling out the notification form or writing a notification letter to HHS, both of which trigger the dissemination of contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees in connection with their employee health plans.”

The brief point out that a woman’s right to get contraceptives is not unlimited.

“This does not mean they have a right to free contraceptives and abortifacients. Moreover, this right certainly does not mean that a person has the right to obtain contraceptives and abortifacients – either directly or indirectly – from their employer at the expense of pillaging the employer’s religious liberty,” the brief states.

The Little Sisters charge the government is forcing them to violate their faith by giving them a choice between providing contraceptives and abortion pills directly or ordering them to sign over their responsibility to someone else.

“These notification requirements trigger the non-profits’ insurers to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans. This notification requirement makes the non profits complicit in the provision of a service that they find sinful, thereby causing them to sin themselves,” the brief explains.

The law center argues there should not even be a case.

“The government already subsidizes contraceptives and abortifacients through its programs and could find ways to expand or increase the efficacy of those existing programs,” the brief says.

“The government could offer grants, go directly to insurers, or engage in countless other options that do not involve the cooperation of petitioners.”

Further, providing “free contraceptives and abortifacients” is not a compelling government interest, the law center argues, quoting the Supreme Court itself.

“The many exemptions already provided for under the regulations necessarily destroy any argument that the HHS mandate serves a compelling interest.”

It was the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that took on the authority of determining what is sin.

Another recent brief challenged: “Perhaps the apex among a host of acts of governmental arrogance in this case was displayed not by HHS, but when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit acted as if it had ecclesiastical powers of absolution, having decreed that by just signing a paper, Little Sisters would not be ‘morally complicit in providing contraceptive coverage.'”

The brief said one would expect that “on the issue of who the God of Heaven and Earth will hold ‘morally complicit,’ it would be the Little Sisters which would have the greater expertise than a federal judge.”

Views: 526

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In the interest of separating "Church & State" , The Little Sisters of the Poor have the right by a "moral imperative" under religious freedom to refuse anything they would consider a "sin."  All they need to do is include in their "bylaws" that all employees will abide by and consent to our "religious tenants" regarding any and all activities or conduct that would be considered a "sin" by our particular order of nuns.........Questions?

The term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.  The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.

A strict separationist view is not supported by the Constitution.   Such an approach would contradict other parts of the First Amendment.  It would be at war with the protection of the “free exercise” of religion. If government could wall out religious persons and groups from participation in public affairs or from benefits or programs generally available to all, on the basis of neutral criteria, that would mean government could discriminate against religion.  


The strict separationist view is also at war with the freedom of speech and press, likewise protected by the First Amendment. Under a “separation” view, religious groups could not use government facilities (school buildings, public parks) for expressive purposes on the same basis as other groups. Literally dozens of Supreme Court cases reject that view. In a notable 1995 case (Rosenberger v. University of Virginia) the Court held that a state university could not refuse to fund on an even-handed basis a religious student newspaper, if it made funding available to other student publications. The Free Speech Clause forbade discrimination against religious speech or press, the Court held, and the Establishment Clause could not sensibly be read to require such discrimination.

during the DNC NATIONAL CONVENTION they actually voted to remove GOD from their platform.....and now they want to define what sin is? this is the liberal left that has supported removing the TEN COMMANDMENTS from everywhere and obamas policies have violated the constitutional rights of what ever their definition of sin is..they can look in one of two places...THE BIBLE OR THE MIRROR.

Eventually they want America to b a Muslim Nation under Sharia Law. God help us!!!!!

In that case,  Every single Politician and Catholic pope is a walking, talking sin.      Me,  don't care one bit about the word sin.   It is only a word in part to impose fear on people.    In the end, nothing really matters, we all die regardless if we do or not.  Still end up in the same place.  

This Govt of ours, right now, is so dysfunctional, it couldn't find it's own ass with both hands. The Sin is Corruption with a Capitol "C".

Marxism has a religion... it's called HUMANISM... and the Humanist is a dogmatic ideologue who hates any competition in the realm of morals.  It is hardly any surprise that the Marxist Cultural Revolution would morph into a quasi-religion with all the tapestry of religion while claiming to be irreligious.  With each passing year the Humanist and their Marxist sponsor continue to expand there hold on the moral temperament in America. Replacing our historical Judeo/Christian moral system.... with politically correct amoral and immoral values. 

Marxism declared destroy the Culture, and all else, will follow.   Destroy moral accountability, which is the idea of the Christian Religion, and there is no blame, no condemnation, no fault= NO GUILT.=chaos.

The sin of following the Constitution as explained to a police chief...

WE WOULD RATHER OBEY GOD THAN MEN!!  Howard Marshall once said, "Christians have to respond to hostile forces in an unbelieving world; they must live lives of a character that can be recognized for its quality even by non-Christians."  Exodus 20 speak of idols and carved images, "you shall not bow down to them nor serve them!"  Acts 5:29, "We ought to obey God rather than men!"  Daniel 3:17-18, "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king.  But if not, let it be known that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up!!!"  OUR TRUST IS IN THE LORD WHO IS ABLE TO DELIVER US FROM HARM, THOUGH HE MAY, ACCORDING TO HIS WILL, CHOOSE NOT TO!  Thus, if we do a comprehensive study of the fall of nations down through history we see three main themes taking place.  First, Persecution of the innocents.  Second, adoption of radical homosexual policies in our courts, schools, societies, and governments and finally, Turning backs to or persecution of Israel!!  A nation adopting these three policies within their historical foundation, will make God, CHOOSE NOT TO DELIVER!!  We as a Nation have perform the attributes of Judgement!!  It is know wait and see, not what obama will do, not what SCOTUS will do, but what God and His people will do!!!!

NO  God has already done that.  Try as they might they are not God.




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service