190 Million More Reasons Why the HHS Mandate is Bushwah

Last updated on: January 24, 2017 at 5:54 pm by Frank Weathers

190 Million More Reasons Why the HHS Mandate is Bushwah 2017-01-24T17:54:45-05:00 Frank Weathers

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I mean in addition to the first reason (that it’s unconstitutional). It’s simple, as District Judge John L. Kane noted when he handed down an injunction the other day which thwarted the governments’ case (bold emphasis is mine),

I do not mean to suggest that the government may not establish a compelling interest in the uniform application of a particular program. To make such a showing, however, the government must “offer evidence that granting the requested religious accommodations would seriously compromise its ability to administer this program.” Id. at 435. Any such argument is undermined by the existence of numerous exemptions to the preventive care coverage mandate. In promulgating the preventive care coverage mandate, Congress created significant exemptions for small employers and grandfathered health plans.11,12 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(c)(2) (exempting from health care provision requirement employers of less than fifty full-time employees); 42 U.S.C. § 18011 (grandfathering of existing health care plans). Even Defendants created a regulatory exemption to the contraception mandate. 76 Fed. Reg. 46621, 46626 (Aug. 3, 2011) (exempting certain religious employers from the contraception requirement of the preventive care coverage mandate).

A law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the highest order when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah,508 U.S. 520, 547 (1993); see also United States v. Friday,525 F.3d 938, 958 (10th Cir. 2008). The government has exempted over 190 million health plan participants and beneficiaries from the preventive care coverage mandate;13this massive exemption completely undermines any compelling interest in applying the preventive care coverage mandate to Plaintiffs.14

Good point, Your Honor. And since you’ll want to know what all those footnotes are all about,

The government’s attempt to characterize grandfathering as “phased implementation” is unavailing. As noted above, health plans may retain their grandfathered status indefinitely. Most damaging to the government’s alleged compelling interest, even though Congress required grandfathered health plans to comply with certain provisions of the ACA, it specifically exempted grandfathered health plans from complying with the preventive care coverage mandate. See 42 U.S.C. § 18011(a)(3-4) (specifying those provisions of the ACA that apply to grandfathered health plans).

The government argues that because these provisions are generally applicable, and not specifically limited to the preventive services coverage regulations, they are not exemptions from the preventive care coverage mandate. This is a distinction without substance. By exempting employers from providing health care coverage, these provisions exempt those employers from providing preventative health care coverage to women. If the government has a compelling interest in ensuring no-cost provision of preventative health coverage to women, that interest is compromised by exceptions allowing employers to avoid providing that coverage — whether broadly or narrowly crafted.

Even if, as is estimated under the government’s high-end estimate, 69% of health plans lose their grandfathered status by the end of —, millions health plan participants and beneficiaries will continue to be exempted from the preventive care coverage mandate. See 75 Fed. Reg. 34538, 34553.

To the extent the government argues creating an exemption for Plaintiffs threatens to undermine the preventive care coverage mandate, that argument is inconsistent with RFRA and irrelevant in this context. See Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 436 (rejecting “slippery slope” argument as inconsistent with RFRA).

Read the entire order handed down in Newland vs. Sebelius over at Leagle. They’ve got the whole thing, footnotes and all.

But before you do, have a look at the following video, where Justice Kane opines on what needs to be done to truly reform the civil justice system.

I especially like his idea to “escape from having commercial interests drive everything that we do.” Hear, hear!

Previous Post

July 29, 2012

What Would President Obama's Second Term Look Like?

Next Post

August 2, 2012 Six Former Ambassadors to the Vatican Co-Chair "Catholics for Romney"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog News Conversion Story Culture Learning Living Nature Prayer Uncategorized Working

Select a Month June 2016 May 2016 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I was fed by ravens at a brook and later by a widow whose oil and flour never ran out. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Moses Elijah Elisha Samuel