Two Federal Courts Strike Down Contraception Abortion Pill Mandate for Private Companies, including Domino's Pizza

Just as Hobby Lobby has declared that they will defy an Obamacare mandate to provide contraception to their employees because abortion pills are not something that the company believes they should provide and it is against their religious beliefs, two different federal court have struck down the contraception mandate for private businesses, including Domino's Pizza.

This is very good news! Two different judges striking down the abortion pill mandate of Obamacare means there is a good likelihood that the government will take this all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States where the contraception mandate can be struck down for all of America.

People are fighting back against this unconstitutional breach of freedom of religion. How can the government tell you you have to pay for abortion pills for other people. This is outrageous! Hobby Lobby temporarity did not win in Court but they are still taking a bold stand and defying the mandate. Thankfully, some of the other companies, like Domino's, have been sucessful in court.

I pray that, in the end of this Obamacare mess, our religious and constitutional rights have been restored!

from Fox News:

Judge halts contraceptive mandate for Michigan firm owned by founder of Domino's Pizza

Published December 31, 2012

Associated Press

A federal judge has ruled a property management company owned by the founder of Domino's Pizza doesn't have to immediately implement mandatory contraception coverage in the health care law.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff ruled Sunday in favor of Tom Monaghan and his Domino's Farms Corp., near Ann Arbor. Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception isn't health care but a "gravely immoral" practice.

 

from National Review:

The Seventh Circuit Blocks the HHS Mandate for a Private Business

Late yesterday afternoon, the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency injunction against the HHS mandate — preventing its enforcement against an Illinois business and its owners. My colleagues at the ACLJ represent Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., a family-owned, full-service construction contractor. The company is located in Highland, Ill., and employs about 90 workers. 

The brief opinion is worth a read in its entirety, but two parts stand out. First, the court disagreed with the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision rejecting Hobby Lobby’s request for a similar injunction. In a key paragraph the court stated:

The government also argues that any burden on religious exercise is minimal and attenuated, relying on a recent decision by the Tenth Circuit in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 12‐6294 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2012). Hobby Lobby, like this case, involves a claim for injunctive and declaratory relief against the mandate brought by a secular, for‐profit employer. On an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, the Tenth Circuit denied an injunction pending appeal, noting that “the particular burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the corporate] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity condemned by plaintiff[s’] religion.” Id. at 7 (quoting Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1294 (W.D. Okla. 2012)). With respect, we think this misunderstands the substance of the claim. The religious‐liberty violation at issue here inheres in the coerced coverage of contraception, abortifacients, sterilization, and related services, not—or perhaps more precisely, not only—in the later purchase or use of contraception or related services. 

This is exactly right. The mandated coverage exists — regardless of the actions or activities of the individual employees — and it is the mandate that violates the religious liberty of the employer.

Second, the court distinguished Justice Sotomayor’s recent decision not to grant Hobby Lobby emergency relief, rightly noting that Justice Sotomayor applied a much different standard:

But the “demanding standard” for issuance of an extraordinary writ by the Supreme Court . . .  differs significantly from the standard applicable to a motion for a stay or injunction pending appeal in this court. As Justice Sotomayor noted, the entitlement to relief must be “‘indisputably clear.’”