Supreme Court rules for Little Sisters of the Poor in long-running dispute over birth control mandate

Wa Ex:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Little Sisters of the Poor are exempt from an Obama-era mandate to provide contraception in their healthcare plans, an outcome regarded as a major victory by religious liberty advocates.

The case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, marked the Catholic religious order’s second time before the Supreme Court, after nearly 10 years of legal dispute. It arose when the New Jersey and Pennsylvania state governments sued the Trump administration for exempting the Little Sisters from the contraception mandate.

In a 7-2 decision with the majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that the administration’s exemptions were issued with the proper “statutory authority” and that their implementation was “free from procedural defects.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguing the opposite.

The exemption, issued in the form of a 2017 executive order from President Trump, stated that the Little Sisters are protected from “undue interference from the federal government.” Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar recommitted to that position the following year with guidelines exempting religious non-profits from contraception requirements outlined in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. more here

5 Comments on Supreme Court rules for Little Sisters of the Poor in long-running dispute over birth control mandate

  1. As stated previously, being on the Supreme Court is the easiest job in government as proven by the fact that even two members of the crazy far left hate America branch of the court understands that a Constitutional amendment overrules an unlawful government mandate!

    5
  2. “…The case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, marked the Catholic religious order’s second time before the Supreme Court, after nearly 10 years of legal dispute.”

    …and what do you suppose 10 years of legal wrangling against an inexhaustible pool of State-funded lawyers that goes all the way to the Supremes TWICE costs?

    What it cost when the Little Sisters OF THE POOR have to PAY for it?

    How much money was spent having to fight something so CLEARLY unconstitutional, that was NOT spent on the poor?

    And what chance does Joe Muffler and Betty Bakeshop that you’ve never HEARD of have to even be able to FIGHT it???

    …make no mistake, they don’t really care if they “lost”, they tied up a Catholic charity for NO REASON for a DECADE, and a highly VISIBLE one, too.

    This is a message that ANYONE who defys will get lawfared to death and rope-a-doped with meritless lawsuits until they surrender or are bankrupt.

    This was an EXAMPLE. They WILL destroy you for defiance.

    …and don’t think the LSOTP are clear, either.

    They’ll be back for THEM, too…

    4
  3. I am really surprised that Kagan and Breyer both sided with the majority. Somewhat less surprised, but still wouldn’t have counted on Roberts to go against. Ginsburg and Sotomayor? No surprise that they would vote against anything that isn’t at least left, if not radical left.

  4. @SNS – they don’t care that it was a charity supporting the poor. On the scale of priorities, the poor do rate, but much lower than other things on the liberal (communistic) scale.
    Besides, the poor cannot donate as much to their campaigns (or at least the campaigns of those who would put those ideologies on the Court)

    2
  5. …one wonders about the details of Islamic “charity” health plans, as abortion in Islam is verboten unless the GUY wants it.

    …but we’ll never find OUT, will we?

    …Because who in the Government will EVER question Islam…

    1

Comments are closed.