And THIS is why the Hobby Lobby decision has such dire consequences
Hobby Lobby was just the shot across the bow. The war is now on.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381734/after-hobby-lobby-comes-judge-pryor-quin-hillyer
July 2, 2014 4:00 AM
After Hobby Lobby Comes Judge Pryor
An Eleventh Circuit judge, citing Hobby Lobby, rules in favor of a Catholic TV network.
By Quin Hillyer
Two left-leaning judges on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals showed on Monday what the Obama administration should do regarding the many remaining cases involving the HHS abortifacients mandate: Give up.
It does not take much to read between the lines in the injunction that a unanimous three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit granted Monday afternoon in favor of Eternal Word Television Network, which runs Catholic-themed programming. In the case of EWTN v. Secretary of HHS, it looks to me as if two of the three judges were not eager to grant the injunction but felt compelled to that action by the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday in the Hobby Lobby case. Those two judges — Beverly Martin and Adalberto Jordan — were both appointed to federal district courts by Bill Clinton and both elevated to the appeals court by Obama. Both are considered at least moderately liberal.
The order begins as follows (emphasis is mine): “In light of the Supreme Court’s decision today in [the Hobby Lobby case], we grant the motion of Eternal Word Television Network.” The brief order ends with an unusual and unnecessary line: “We express no views on the ultimate merits of EWTN’s appeal in this case.”
On one hand, that is a tautology: Any injunctive order without a majority opinion accompanying it will by definition “express no views” on the ultimate merits, because an injunction is not a decision on the merits. On the other hand, injunctions are not supposed to be issued unless the court believes there is a “substantial” likelihood that the party granted the injunction will win on the merits. For the majority to fail to explain its injunctive order other than via one clause referencing a Supreme Court case, and then to go out of its way to cast doubt on the strength of the ultimate merits of the grantee’s case, shows only a grudging acceptance of Monday’s undeniable signal from the high court....
More at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381734/after-hobby-lobby-comes-judge-pryor-quin-hillyer
= new reply since forum marked as read
It is not a question of whether one should use contraceptives or not
It is not a question as to what Hobby Lobby chooses to do
The question is whether the religious beliefs of those making the law should
negate the legal rights of those with different beliefs who must follow
their decisions.
The five supreme court justices who came down against contraceptive care in
their decision are all Catholic.
The Catholic faith is against contraceptives.
The five justices would have sinned against their faith if they allowed
contraceptive care.
In the Catholic church this is a mortal sin which could cause the 5 justices
to lose their salvation and possibly be excommunicated.
IF THEY COULD NOT VIOLATE THEIR FAITH WAS IT FAIR FOR THEM TO
MAKE A DECISION THAT IMPACTED PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT FAITHS OR
NO FAITH.
WOULD THESE JUSTICES EVER BE ABLE TO VOTE ON A SUBJECT IF THAT
VOTE WAS CONSIDERED A SIN AGAINST THEIR CHURCH AND FAITH?
THIS IS FROM CATHOLIC ANSWERS
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"
, which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.
Thus to avoid sinning against their faith they deprived those of other
or no faith of that part of their health care.
In Iran, decisions are made in the same way.
The religious beliefs of those making the decisions guide their actions
and what the people must follow.
So this is where we are.
The United States joins Iran in making laws based on the religious
beliefs of the judges.
Bill Donahue bdona910782000@yahoo.com
