States sue over contraceptive mandate

Yesterday, seven states and an assortment of others filed suit in Federal District Court in Nebraska challenging the administration’s new regulation concerning “free” birth control.

The suit was brought by the states of Nebraska, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Michigan, as well as several Catholic institutions and individuals.

‘This regulation forces millions of Americans to choose between following religious convictions and complying with federal law,’ [Nebraska’s Attorney General Jon] Bruning said in a news release.

He called the regulation a violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing religious freedom, and he said it was ‘a threat to every American, regardless of religious faith.’

‘We will not stand idly by while our constitutionally guaranteed liberties are discarded by an administration that has sworn to uphold them,’ Bruning said.

The administration hasn’t filed an answer yet, but, we have a clue as to what their stance will be based upon an oral argument last week  in a suit brought by a Catholic college in North Carolina.  There the government argued that the rule doesn’t go into effect until August, 2013, and, in the interim, the government is still working on the rule, and, thus, any suit now is premature.

This “defense” is similar to what we saw with Obamacare…it’s not a tax, on second thought, yes, it is a tax…

So, here is my question…if the administration is still “tinkering” with the regulation, why was it announced as a fait accompli in February, 2012?

I have my thoughts about this, but I would like to hear yours.
 

15 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    “So, here is my question?if the administration is still ?tinkering? with the regulation, why was it announced as a fait accompli in February, 2012?”
    ?
    I would say it was a combination trial balloon and misdirection from the lousy economy and rocketing fuel prices, Fast and Furious, etc. etc.? They wanted to shift the outrage to something they could use, excuse me, twist to yet again divide us against ourselves, this time by making women think that Republicans care whether they use contraceptives or not.? (we don’t)

  2. winnie
    winnie says:

    I noticed that CT isn’t among the states suing.? Shocking.? At least some states out there are willing to stand up for what is right and just and constitutional.? Some day I hope to live in one of those states.

      • Murphy
        Murphy says:

        Before that the state was known as the “Nutmeg State” – not because of our Nutmegs but we were able to sell wooden nutmegs as the real thing. If you follow that reasoning then our current office holders in the state are up holding a long tradition of pull the wool over the customers eyes.

  3. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    The O and his minions are in the position of doing whatever they want, seeing if it sticks to the wall, and if the polling starts smelling of day-old fish, (or someone other than the stooges in the MSN report it, or the legal venue is uncertain, etc.) they water it down or abandon it and move to the next Socialist outrage on the bucket list. And no, we will never hear “sorry”. ??

  4. crystal4
    crystal4 says:

    Filed by Republican lawmakers in those states. Why do we have to waste taxpayers $$$ with these “election year” frivolous lawsuits!! ( when at least 18 states already have this mandate-? signed by Mike Huckabee).

    • winnie
      winnie says:

      Well, of course filed by Republican lawmakers in those states.?? Seems pretty obvious that it wouldn’t be democrats filing.? And there’s nothing frivolous about these lawsuits–and the only reason it’s an issue during an election year (as Dims points out) is because the incumbent president made it an issue.
      At what point are liberal democrats going to figure out that blaming republicans for what their guy does just ain’t workin’ anymore?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      And you are free to leave it as you wish, supporting the proposition that the church really can’t “force you to believe” as some on this board would have you believe.?? I wonder if there will be similar requirements on Scientologists etc., somewhere down the line.? I know they got special exemptions (unequal protection?), but mandated coverage is mandated coverage, and if one religion is not exempt, then none can be.

      • sammy22
        sammy22 says:

        Thanks for the “largesse”. When the argument was about separation of church and state, at least it made some sense. When the argument slid into defending secular Catholic institutions, it became political theater.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        Are they actually “secular Catholic institutions”, or is the ?bama administration trying to make them that way?? That is the crux of the argument.?? Secular or not, they should be allowed to run they way they wish, particularly if there are plenty of alternative outlets for your medical needs, and especially if there is a Constitutional provision for doing so.? Nobody objected when the church built those hospitals, but trying to secularize (or is it nationalize?) them after the fact should grant them ex post facto relief at minimum.

  5. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    To answer SOS?
    The fait accompli was a shot from the hip by the President.? Almost a “make them eat cake” attitude of -???I’ll step on the 1st amendment, upset the church, throw the women’s rights under the bus with the churches when the time is right and bag the insurance companies brom the blind side.
    His buddies are trying to smooth things out for him.? Not because they don’t agree with him, but because he is pushing for his socialist agenda faster than the left thinks the populous is ready for it.

Comments are closed.