“ObamaCare is the biggest funding of abortion in American history . . . [and] will for the first time require employers and individuals to directly fund abortion. This abortion mandate collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience.”For background, read Judges Rule Against ObamaCare, Favor Christians and also read Bishops Say Catholic Church Will Defy ObamaCare as well as Supreme Court OKs Taxes for Abortion: ObamaCare
-- Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law
UPDATE 1/7/13: Christians Oppose ObamaCare, Support Hobby Lobby
UPDATE 7/11/13: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 3-judge panel rules ObamaCare trumps freedom of religion, Liberty University will appeal to Supreme Court
A federal district judge rejected Liberty’s claims, and a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit voted 2-1 that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school’s arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.
The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The [Obama] administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.
Liberty law school dean Mathew Staver said, “This case now will go back to the federal court of appeals where we will address the undecided issues that the Supreme Court did not address.”
The case is Liberty University v. Geithner, 11-438
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court revives Obamacare challenge" by Baptist Press Staff 11/26/12
Religious objections to the Obama administration's abortion/contraception mandate have gained new life after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a federal appeals judge to reconsider a Christian university's challenge to the health care law.
"Today's ruling breathes new life into our challenge to Obamacare. Our fight against Obamacare is far from over," said Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver, dean of Liberty University's law school.
"Congress exceeded its power by forcing every employer to provide federally mandated insurance. But even more shocking is the abortion mandate, which collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience."
At least 35 Christian universities and businesses have filed suits against the health care mandates, including Louisiana College, Houston Baptist University and East Texas Baptist University.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court Allows Revival of Challenge against Healthcare Reform" posted at JD Journal 11/27/12
Earlier, in June, the Supreme Court had upheld most of the healthcare reform in a 5-4 vote, but kept the possibility for groups or individuals to challenge implementation of the law. In its decision in June, the Supreme Court did not address issues of employer mandate or claims of religious freedom.
Liberty University had brought one of the first private lawsuits against the healthcare law, filing it on the very day that Obama signed the healthcare law.
In the instant case the question had come before the Supreme Court, because earlier, the 4th Circuit had held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the case as allowing it would mean violating the federal Anti-Injunction Act that bans lawsuits seeking to prevent collection of a tax.
In September 2011, the Supreme Court had declined to review the appeal raised by the university, but the university amended its petition and said that the 4th Circuit had erred in its decision on jurisdiction, so the decision should be dismissed and a new lawsuit should be allowed to proceed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Some Obamacare Legal Challenges Are Alive and Well" by John G. Malcolm, Heritage Foundation 11/26/12
The Fourth Circuit had dismissed Liberty’s lawsuit as not ripe for adjudication pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.”
In essence, the Fourth Circuit held that Liberty’s challenge was premature because the tax in question had not taken effect and that Liberty could not assert its claims until that happened. The Supreme Court rejected this rationale in NFIB, holding that the individual mandate was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act (contrary to what the Fourth Circuit had held) but that it could be considered a tax for purposes of determining whether Congress’s power had properly exercised its authority under the Taxing Clause of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution.
Having rejected the Fourth Circuit’s reason for not ruling on the merits, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit so that it could take whatever action is appropriate in light of the NFIB decision.
. . . These issues will ultimately wend their way through the courts back up to the Supreme Court for its consideration
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
