Many of us stayed up to midnight last night and watched the ball come down in Times Square. If you were still sober enough to notice, the person triggering the dissent was none other than Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It turns out that that was not the only thing that she was doing on New Year’s Eve. Late Tuesday with only hours to go before January 1st — and the activation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — Sotomayor granted a stay requested by Catholic-affiliated groups to prevent the implementation of part of the ACA to require them to supply contraceptive services to employees in violation of their religious beliefs. The decision follows a refusal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to issue a stay. The stay order by Sotomayor was requested from Catholic nuns running the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged in Denver and now joins a stay issued earlier by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The decision guarantees that no one will have morning after regrets today in allowing the law to be implemented without a final resolution of the religious freedom claims. Sotomayor could still lift the stay since she gave the Obama Administration until 10 am EST on Friday to respond to the order. Until then, the government is “temporarily enjoined from enforcing against applicants the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
The decision is a victory for the Becket Fund, which argued that “the ‘accommodation’ still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.”
The stay makes sense given the Court’s decision to hear similar arguments in the Hobby Lobby case discussed earlier. The case involves objections from businesses and individuals like David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, who insist that the Act’s required support for contraceptive services violates religious rights. Two cases were accepted: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (13-354); and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (13-356).
Under the ACA, non-for-profit religious corporation have an exemption. However, Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company that is run according to the family’s religious beliefs. These new Catholic-affliated groups are not parts of the Church but educational institutions like Catholic University and other types of enterprises.
While the Obama Administration arranged for insurers to pay for such services for religious objectors, that compromise would still require the businesses to sign off on the payment for services in contradiction to their beliefs. Such stays are significant legally because they are granted on a view that the party is likely to prevail on the merits. Earlier a D.C. Circuit panel split 2-1 in granting a similar stay. Judge David S. Tatel dissented in the case, concluding “[b]ecause I believe that appellants are unlikely to prevail on their claim that the challenged provision imposes a ‘substantial burden’ under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I would deny their application for an injunction pending appeal.”
Putting aside that standard, the decision could reflect an accommodation for those members who granted cert in Hobby Lobby. The decision freezes the status quo and, if not reversed after Friday, would allow the Court to proceed to the merits in the Hobby Lobby case without having chaos over whether and how the provision can be enforced. That case is expected to be argued in March and decided by summer.
What BLOUISE said!!! Thank you for being a voice of logic and sanity.
About Lynne Stewart’s release?
Long overdue.
OT:
Federal Judge John Koeltl:
December 31, 2013
BREAKING: Lynne Stewart Freed From Prison, Granted “Compassionate Release”
Jan. 1, 2014 UPDATE:
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/12/31/breaking_fed_govt_asks_judge_to
“Lynne Stewart was released from prison Friday after federal Judge John Koeltl ordered her “compassionate release.” He wrote that “Stewart’s “terminal medical condition and very limited life expectancy constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons that warrant the requested reduction [of her sentence.]… It is further ordered that the defendant shall be released from the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons as soon as her medical condition permits, the release plan is implemented and travel arrangements can be made.”” continues…
I recall years ago, when employed by a Catholic hospital, my employer provided health insurance, covered birth control. What changed? Religious affiliated employers employ people of all religions and even atheists, why must these people’s health insurance reflect the employer’s religious beliefs? These are employers, first and foremost when it comes to their employees. However I’m glad that Sotomayer granted the stay, it should be heard by the highest court in the land and decided upon once and for all.
I will add myself to the list of people who wish that there had been a public option. Employers should not be providing health insurance for their employees, pay them more and call it a day.
From the LA Times:
Justice Sotomayor grants temporary Obamacare exemption to nuns
The Catholic nuns would have faced ‘draconian fines’ if they failed to provide contraceptive coverage, as the healthcare law requires.
By David G. Savage and Maeve Reston
December 31, 2013, 10:33 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a temporary exemption late Tuesday to a small group of Catholic nuns that shields it from having to comply with a part of President Obama’s healthcare law that requires it to provide contraceptive coverage in its insurance plans.
She acted on an emergency appeal from lawyers for the group who said the nuns faced “draconian fines” beginning on New Year’s Day if they failed to comply with the law widely known as Obamacare.
Sotomayor gave the government until Friday to file a response in the case. Her order extends only to the group of nuns and does not apply more broadly to the Affordable Care Act and its requirements.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-nuns-20140101,0,1578524.story#ixzz2pAfCCJEs
This requirement is illegal. It is not as if the nuns are against Obamacare. I would venture a guess they support the law. It is not as if the Catholic Church just adopted this no contraceptive rule, it’s been rhythm or nothing since contraception was created. Sotomayor is not the evil Scalia you all hate. Her decision was reasonable and will almost certainly stand. I was raised Catholic. Like most Catholics, I think their contraceptive rule is stupid. But, it’s a religious freedom issue and the fact that folks can’t simply see that is mind boggling. Thankfully, Sotomayor showed her chops and put politics aside, making a decision against the prez who appointed her. This is the way it’s supposed to work. Deal w/ it!
Annie,
Each Sct Justice is over a particular circuit of the federal court system….. It is even possible that the Sct justice can sit in that circuit and then hear the appeal to the Sct….. If that justice had rejected the request then they could ask for a simple majority panel injunction …..
Can someone please explain how one Justice can act independently in issuing this injunction. Thank you.
What I have never understood about religious folk is their need to seek government enforcement/validation of their beliefs on those who do not follow said beliefs. It is not the government’s job to validate any religion … in fact, our Constitution expressly forbids it.
The fact that one’s religion forbids the use of contraception is fine for those who follow that religion but asking the government to forbid others who are not followers of one’s religion from obtaining contraception simply because they associate with followers of said religion is peremptoriness at its core and pure laziness in its practice.
As a follower of a religion, it is your responsibility, not the government’s, to convince others to come into your fold and follow your religious dictates.
So gird your loins religious ones. Get out there and do your job. Convince the non-followers to follow. Validate your own religion and stop asking the government to do it for you.
Of course … ahem … we non-followers know many of your followers and thus know they ignore the dictates of your religion every day, day after day, year after year which, I suppose, being aware of those failures on the part of your own followers is another reason you seek government’s enforcement/validation.
What other alternative do you have when your own followers treat your religion as a … ahem … Hobby.
Lobby Sotomayor?
I think I may have a comment snagged by WordPress.
I don’t like the idea of any religious institution or private company claiming religion to get a waiver on any laws relating to their employees. They should be seen as the employers they are.
“The Obamacare We Deserve”
By MICHAEL MOORE, Published: December 31, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/moore-the-obamacare-we-deserve.html
Excerpt:
Let’s not take a victory lap yet, but build on what there is to get what we deserve: universal quality health care.
Those who live in red states need the benefit of Medicaid expansion. It may have seemed like smart politics in the short term for Republican governors to grab the opportunity offered by the Supreme Court rulings that made Medicaid expansion optional for states, but it was long-term stupid: If those 20 states hold out, they will eventually lose an estimated total of $20 billion in federal funds per year — money that would be going to hospitals and treatment.
In blue states, let’s lobby for a public option on the insurance exchange — a health plan run by the state government, rather than a private insurer. In Massachusetts, State Senator James B. Eldridge is trying to pass a law that would set one up. Some counties in California are also trying it. Montana came up with another creative solution. Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat who just completed two terms, set up several health clinics to treat state workers, with no co-pays and no deductibles. The doctors there are salaried employees of the state of Montana; their only goal is their patients’ health. (If this sounds too much like big government to you, you might like to know that Google, Cisco and Pepsi do exactly the same.)
All eyes are on Vermont’s plan for a single-payer system, starting in 2017. If it flies, it will change everything, with many states sure to follow suit by setting up their own versions. That’s why corporate money will soon flood into Vermont to crush it. The legislators who’ll go to the mat for this will need all the support they can get: If you live east of the Mississippi, look up the bus schedule to Montpelier.
So let’s get started. Obamacare can’t be fixed by its namesake. It’s up to us to make it happen.
Universal healthcare is the only way out of this ACA quagmire that is based on corporate profits and religious demands. I am again reminded why I am a retired Catholic….
Shoe fits…. I wouldn’t suggest she’s on the take…. But come on…. Leave it alone….
We need universal health care. The way the ACA went about attempting to make this happen is a disgrace. The law should really be called the HIPHIPA “Health Insurer and Pharmaceuticals Income and High Profits Act”.
We have this little thing called the “Constitution”. Unlike other countries where people have rights granted by the government, we have a government that is granted governance by the people. It is high time the Courts take back their rightful position and hold the government accountable to the contract signed some 227 years ago.
Do we need health care? Yep, was the ACA the way to do it? Not in my opinion. Health care is a bigger mess today than it was a year ago. Sad.
It breaks down to the government compelling an individual to buy something they may or may not want. This is especially bad as revenues collected will also support some people who never felt compelled to buy the same product in the first place. Why shouldn’t it be that the government leave us the hell alone. If you don’t want to work at one store then work at another. A number of respondents to this blog want to bring up the “what ifs” and “it’s not fair” bs. That’s a major problem. The simple and most effective solution is not to regulate this at all. Be self reliant. If you don’t buy insurance, affordable or not, then live or die with the consequences.
Outrage? How about this. “Someone I know” is worth about $1 Million. That person is only expected to bring in about $40K in dividends, cap gains, etc. Because this person (family) is making less than about $62K per year in 2014 they will get a subsidy of about $740 PER MONTH for their premiums. Is that fair? I think all that person should do is just get insurance on their own without a subsidy. But the government force this process to be. Oh, and all you working people will help pay for this person not to make enough income (translate: not work) to pay for these subsidies. Fair. Shut the front door!
In what role did Sotomayor issue this ruling? Is this a Supreme Court ruling, and if so, can a single associate rule for the entire Court? If not, on what Court was she sitting? Do Supreme Court Justices remain on the bench of the Courts from which they were elevated to that superior position? If so, why?
I will venture that someday those little sisters for the poor have some person in their neck of the woods who is poor who got raped by another poor person not a cat o lic, and now we will have a child out of wedlock for the sisters to take care of. Oh, but wait. They do not take care of anyone medically, or financially, they just pray for their souls. When Sotomayor was a kid she got her knuckles slammed around by a sister with a ruler. Of course the next thing is for the sisters to claim exemptions for social security for their employees and they don’t want to have to pay for widows and orphans and astardBay children.
“Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company that is run according to the family’s religious beliefs”, which beliefs include doing business with China. Even if we were to accept the idea that a corporation can have religious beliefs — which I do not accept — the government should not be in the role of deciding which religions and which religious beliefs are sincere enough to override law and the public good. There are thousands of non-denominational Protestant churches in the United States, all because someone disagreed with his pastor about a point of belief and went across the street and opened his own church. It’s an outrage that they get special treatment from the IRS, and now they want special treatment on the ACA. What’s next? Will they claim exemption from Medicare and Social Security for their employees because it subverts the role of “the church” to care for the widows and orphans?
Nothing like the privilege of being a religious organization….tax exemptions and exemptions from any other law your god does not approve of. I am sick of it.