Birth Control Device Hazardous: Gov't Wrong Again

In 2002, the federal FDA approved Essure, a device consisting of metal coils and other synthetic materials designed to be permanently implanted into the fallopian tubes of healthy women in order to sterilize them.  After years of negative health effects by thousands of women, the FDA is reconsidering the safety of this device produced by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

"This is a high priority issue for the agency.  The FDA plans to review the findings of this study, along with the latest medical literature on the Essure device . . ."
-- Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statement

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Birth Control Pill Causes Breast Cancer, Vasectomies Cause Prostate Cancer

Contraceptive Pill 'Yaz' Causes Disease, Death

Federal Government Says Pill is Dangerous, but Keep Taking it

'The Pill' Reaches Age 50, but Do the Women Who Use It?

Fictional 'Safe Sex' - Government Losing War on STDs

Pediatricians Push IUDs & Implants on Teen Girls

Also read President Obama's CDC Wants More Worry-free Sex for Teen Girls (fewer pregnancies), but admit Government Failure: Carefree Sex is NOT Possible

On the other hand, studies show that Women Who Give Birth Live Longer and Healthier.





-- From "Essure Sterilization Device Causes 'Serious Safety Concern': Study" by Maggie Fox, NBC News 10/14/15

Dr. Art Sedrakyan of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York and colleagues analyzed data from 8,048 women who got Essure implants and compared them to 44,278 who had standard surgery to block or "tie" their fallopian tubes between 2005 and 2013 in New York State.

"A more than 10-fold higher occurrence of reoperation during the first year following Essure-based surgery is a serious safety concern," the team wrote in their report.

"And that surgery is likely to be much more complicated than the laproscopic approach that they should be considering."

The FDA is not considering pulling the device off the market, but will determine whether extra warnings should be added.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Essure sterilization method under fire" by Elizabeth Cohen, Senior Medical Correspondent, CNN 9/27/15

From November 2002 through May 2015, more than 5,000 women complained to the Food and Drug Administration about the sterilization device, saying it caused problems including unintended pregnancies, stillbirths and debilitating pain and bleeding. On Thursday, the FDA held an all-day hearing on Essure, taking testimony from patients and experts, and promising to announce next steps in the near future.

. . . [Kristiana] Burrell, who also has three stepchildren, said she became pregnant while using the Essure device, even though at the time she was also using a back-up method of birth control.

That baby, whom she and her husband named Ariel Grace, was born in June, nearly three months early. She never took a breath.

Burrell said her obstetrician blamed Essure for the stillbirth, saying the device's coil ruptured her amniotic sac, causing Burrell to go into labor prematurely. She said she now needs a hysterectomy because the device has perforated her uterus.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Essure Birth Control Implant and Reoperation Need" by Randy Dotinga, HealthDay Reporter (posted at WebMD) 10/13/15

Sterilization with Essure (called hysteroscopic sterilization) does offer benefits compared to other kinds of procedures, Sedrakyan team said, and it's not clear how many of the reoperations were required due to serious medical problems.

Essure procedures were more expensive (a median of $7,800 compared to $5,100) than surgical procedures, the researchers said. And 30 days after the procedure, the odds of a major medical complication were lower for Essure procedures than for surgery.

However, 2 percent of Essure patients required reoperations later on compared to just 0.2 percent of surgical patients. The difference remained after the researchers adjusted their statistics to account for age and other health problems.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "F.D.A. Panel Weighs Complaints on Essure Contraceptive Implant" by Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times 9/24/15

A panel of experts convened by the Food and Drug Administration excoriated the manufacturer of a contraceptive device for not collecting data that they say could have helped predict risks for women. . . .

Women told of autoimmune problems such as eczema, lupus, celiac disease, of cysts, abscesses and tumors, of severe fatigue and losing control of their bowels, and of odysseys through the health care system in search of diagnoses. Many women have sued the company. The company’s supporters say it is not clear what share of those problems, if any, were caused by the device.

Perhaps most troubling was an account by Gabriella Avina, who said she had taken part in the original clinical trials and had worked for the company, explaining the device to women when it first came on the market. . . . She was found to have celiac disease, a thyroid disorder and myasthenia gravis, illnesses that required multiple hospitalizations, chemotherapy and transfusions.

. . . Bayer continued to stand by the device, saying its safety “is supported by more than a decade of science, with more than 10,000 women studied.” . . . It estimates that a million Essure devices have been distributed around the world, about 60 percent of them in the United States.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read how public schools across America provide sex training for children, and read how various government entities are being injected into the teenage uterus.

And read how the FDA put Unlimited Plan B Abortion Pills in Stores for Kids

In addition, read how increased use of long-acting contraceptives is causing a trend in America: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets

ObamaCare Loses to Christians in High Court, Again

The Supreme Court's 2014 Hobby Lobby decision dealt a blow to President Obama's war on Christianity, but he continues to do battle via ObamaCare.  Yesterday's federal appeals court ruling against the government's birth control mandate means another win for Christian schools and businesses, and foreshadows yet another showdown at the Supreme Court.

“If the [Obama] administration can punish Christian organizations simply because they want to abide by their faith, there is no limit to what other freedoms it can take away. The 8th Circuit was right to uphold the district court’s order and block enforcement of this unconstitutional mandate.”
-- Gregory S. Baylor, senior counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

For background, read about the on-going battle of ObamaCare forcing Christians to pay for abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations; and also read Atheists and Liberals Alike Lament Recent Supreme Court Religious Liberty Rulings

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Federal Judge Blocks ObamaCare Assault on Christians

Christians Oppose ObamaCare, Support Hobby Lobby

Christians Forced into Abortion Business by 9th Circuit Court

California Forces Catholics to Fund Abortion Insurance

Also read President Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity

However, President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion

-- From "Birth control, Obamacare could go back to Supreme Court again" by Anthony Perrucci, WGNO-TV26 (New Orleans, LA) 9/18/15

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis gave religious groups a big win in their fight against the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

The court ruled Thursday to uphold an injunction against the mandate, in a case brought by Dordt College, of Sioux Center, Iowa, and Cornerstone University, of Grand Rapids, Mich.  The schools say their religious beliefs forbid them from providing contraception to employees–as well as applying for accommodations excusing them from doing so.

Six other appeals courts have ruled that the contraception mandate is, in fact, constitutional. That raises the likelihood of the Supreme Court taking up the case to resolve the conflict.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Contraception opt-out violates religious freedom: U.S. appeals court" by Brendan Pierson, Reuters 9/17/15

The [latest version of the ObamaCare] law allows religiously affiliated non-profit employers to opt out of paying for contraceptive coverage directly. Once they do, insurers must provide the coverage separately at no extra cost to the employee. Employers that do not follow the opt-out process face a financial penalty.

Many employers have filed lawsuits against the government, claiming that the opt-out process makes them complicit in providing contraceptive coverage. Before Thursday, however, every appeals court that considered the issue has rejected that argument.

The employers say the opt-out provision violates a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA].

The cases are Dordt College et al v. Burwell, No. 14-2726, and Sharpe Holdings Inc et al v. U.S. Department of Human Services et al, No. 14-1507, both in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals court: ACA birth control mandate a 'substantial burden' on religious employers" by Doug G. Ware, UPI 9/17/15

"We conclude that compelling their participation in the accommodation process by threat of severe monetary penalty is a substantial burden on their exercise of religion," the court said.

The decision means the plaintiffs, four Christian nonprofits, do not need to abide by the law insofar as the birth control mandate is concerned.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court rules against ObamaCare birth control mandate" by Sarah Ferris, The Hill 9/17/15

“With today's decisions, the [Supreme] Court will have great reason to decide this issue in the next term,” one religious rights group, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, wrote in a statement Thursday.

The Supreme Court already has several cases involving the birth control mandate it could take up in its fall term.

The ruling includes 30 references to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the 2014 Supreme Court case that allowed certain for-profit companies to opt out of the mandate. Since that decision, multiple nonprofits, including universities, have taken legal action demanding to be granted the same permissions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Religious groups win Obamacare birth control case" by Robert King, Washington Examiner 9/17/15

"Fifteen federal judges now agree that the government has no right to dictate or second guess a person's sincere religious beliefs," said Lori Windham, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The fund has financed the legal defense for CNS International Ministries and Heartland Christian College, which brought the lawsuit over the birth control mandate.

The appeals court ruled that the government's fines for CNS and the college, which only got an accommodation, do impose a burden on their religious beliefs.

"When the government imposes a direct monetary penalty to coerce conduct that violates religious belief, '[T]here has never been a question that the government 'imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion,'" the opinion said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama demands contraceptive coverage despite 72 court losses" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 9/17/15

Reaching the same conclusion as dozens of other courts, the 8th U.S. Circuit of Appeals has freed two Christian schools, Dordt College in Iowa and Cornerstone University in Michigan, from Obamacare’s abortion-pill mandate, because the law creates a burden on religious rights.

“Even assuming that the government’s interests in safeguarding public health and ensuring equal access to health care for women are compelling, the contraceptive mandate and accommodation process likely are not the least restrictive means of furthering those interests,” the court said.

ADF points out the abortion-pill mandate scorecard shows the government losing 72-16 in the courts. But the Obama administration continues to fight for the provision in its health-care legislation that requires employers to provide birth-control coverage, including drugs that cause abortion, which violates the religious beliefs of many employers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read ObamaCare Funnels $1 Million to Planned Parenthood

And read President Obama Edicts More Transgender Rights via ObamaCare

ACLU Forces Catholic Hospital To Sterilize Woman

Mercy Medical Center in San Francisco refused the request of a patient to be sterilized, so the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threatened to sue, and the Catholic hospital acquiesced, in spite of its policy to refuse abortions, in vitro fertilization, and other unnatural procedures.

"While we’re grateful Mercy Medical has agreed to provide medical care in this instance for Ms. Miller, the reality remains that there is a clear conflict between the best interests of patients and the directives of the Catholic hospital system.”
-- Elizabeth Gill, senior attorney at the ACLU of Northern California

For background, read California Forces Catholics to Fund Abortion, ACLU Celebrates and also read ACLU Sues Bishops for Pro-life Beliefs and Practice as well as ACLU Tells Feds: We'll Force Abortion on Catholic Hospitals

-- From "ACLU Forces Catholic Hospital To Sterilize Woman" by Blake Neff, Reporter, Daily Caller 8/26/15

[Patient Rachel] Miller, who says without Mercy’s cooperation she would have to travel 160 miles to receive the procedure, went to the ACLU for help. Last week the ACLU sent a letter to Mercy threatening a lawsuit, arguing that by denying Miller’s tubal ligation they were engaging in sex discrimination by refusing to provide “pregnancy-related care.”

In a post on the group’s website, ACLU attorney Elizabeth Gill said she’s happy the hospital will comply with Miller’s request, but that the group won’t be satisfied until all hospitals are forced to stop following Catholic doctrine.

This isn’t the first time the ACLU has targeted Catholic hospitals. In 2013, the organization sued the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over its guidelines barring doctors from discussing abortion as a potential option with patients. That lawsuit was dismissed last month.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Want Your Tubes Tied At A Catholic Hospital? Try Threatening To Sue." by Samantha Lachman, Staff Reporter, The Huffington Post 8/25/15

Mercy Medical Center is owned by the San Francisco-based Dignity Health, California's largest private health care network and the fifth-largest in the nation. In April, the hospital said it wouldn't allow patient Rachel Miller to receive a tubal ligation after her caesarean section, which is set to take place next month. The hospital cited the church's Ethical and Religious Directives, which prohibit "inherently evil" reproductive health care procedures like sterilization.

Miller, an attorney who lives in Redding, California, teamed up with the ACLU to protest the decision, which the hospital had communicated to her doctor. The ACLU argued in a letter to Dignity Health that the hospital was discriminating on the basis of sex by denying Miller a tubal ligation, and elevating "theological tenets over patient health."

Asked whether the decision to allow Miller to get a tubal ligation would apply to future cases, a hospital spokeswoman wrote in an email to HuffPost that it "has always and will continue" to operate according to the Catholic church's directives.

The ACLU has targeted Catholic health institutions before for not informing patients in dire medical circumstances that abortion was an option, or for telling doctors they may not discuss abortion with their patients. Health care providers and reproductive rights advocates have increasingly expressed concerns about the practices and procedures of Catholic hospitals, which provide 15 percent of the nation's hospital beds.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth: Gov't Report

A new study from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which receives 85% of its funding from President Obama's federal government agencies, has concluded that even a world-wide one-child policy for population control is not enough.  The Academy's environmentalists, concerned that humans are destroying the planet, also determined that even massive deaths from cataclysmic events such as nuclear war and unprecedented pandemics would not succeed in saving the non-human life of the Earth.

“We were surprised that a five-year WWIII scenario mimicking the same proportion of people killed in the First World War and Second World War combined, barely registered a blip on the human population trajectory this century.”
-- Professor Barry Brook, Ecologist, University of Adelaide

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Obama White House Says Lower Birth Rates Will Lower Costs

Obama White House Advises 'Green' Abortions

Hillary Clinton Agrees 'Family Planning' Critical vs. Climate Change

Vice President Biden Sees Need for China's One-Child Policy

World Health Organization: Earth's Enemy is Too Many Babies

Green Abortions: Hospitals Burning Babies for Heat

Also read Environmentalists Say Trade Babies For Climate Change

-- From "Restricting Population Growth May not solve Environment Issues" by Felix Balthasar, Maine News 10/28/14

According to a new study, controlling population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term. The study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated that if the world follows one-child policy, then the number of people in 2100 remained around current levels.

The study also reported that even if a catastrophic event in the future kills billions of people, it would have a little effect on the overall impact. According to the study, in 2100, there will be about 12 billion people on the earth.

The authors of the study stated that about 14% of all the humans who ever existed on the earth were alive today. Growth in population means an impact on the environment than ever. In near future, humans will have to face problems like conversion of forests for agriculture, climate change, pollution and rise of urbanization.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Culling The Population Is Not A Realistic Environmental Solution" by News Staff, posted at Science 2.0 10/27/14

In the 1960s and '70s, population bomb reality was said to be as settled as climate change is today. No less than Dr. John Holdren, current Obama administration Science Czar, co-authored a book called Ecoscience, which argued that forced sterilization and mass abortions might be necessary, and even viable under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

And older people today still think population is the problem, though since food and energy are not major issues, they argue culling humanity might be necessary to save the environment. New multi-scenario modeling of world human population has concluded that even mandatory sterilization or abortions or a mass kill-off would not bring about large enough change to solve issues of global sustainability as they are portrayed. So World War III won't save the planet.

Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ecologists Professor Corey Bradshaw and Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute say instead that we should focus on policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources and enhance recycling for more immediate sustainability gains.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Reducing population is no environmental 'quick fix'" posted at Eureka! Science News 10/28/14

New multi-scenario modelling of world human population has concluded that even stringent fertility restrictions or a catastrophic mass mortality would not bring about large enough change this century to solve issues of global sustainability. . . .

Fertility reduction efforts, however, through increased family-planning assistance and education, should still be pursued, as this will lead to hundreds of millions fewer people to feed by mid-century.

The researchers constructed nine different scenarios for continuing population ranging from "business as usual" through various fertility reductions, to highly unlikely broad-scale catastrophes resulting in billions of deaths.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'" by Matt McGrath, Environment Correspondent, BBC News 10/27/14

The picture is complicated by the fact that while the overall [worldwide population] figures have been growing, the world's per-capita fertility has been declining for several decades.

"We've gone past the point where we can do it easily, just by the sheer magnitude of the population, what we call the demographic momentum. We just can't stop it fast enough," said Prof Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide.

In their paper, the researchers also look at the impact on numbers of a global catastrophe in the middle of this century. They found that even an event that wiped out two billion people would still leave about eight and a half billion in 2100.

"Our work reveals that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term," said Prof Barry Brook from the University of Tasmania.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Humanity's 'inexorable' population growth is so rapid that even a global catastrophe would not stop it" by Steve Connor, Science Editor, UK Independent 10/27/14

Two prominent ecologists, who normally study animal populations in the wild, have concluded that the number of people in the world today will present one of the most daunting problems for sustainable living on the planet in the coming century – even if every country adopts a draconian “one child” policy.

Professor Bradshaw told The Independent that the study was designed to look at human numbers with the insight of an ecologist studying natural impacts on animals to determine whether factors such pandemics and world wars could dramatically influence the population projections.

Simon Ross, the chief executive of the charity Population Matters, said that introducing modern family planning to the developing world would cost less than $4bn – about one third of the UK’s annual aid budget.

“So, while fertility reduction is not a quick fix, it is relatively cheap, reliable, and popular with most, with generally positive side effects. We welcome the recognition of the potential of family planning and reproductive education to alleviate resource availability in the longer term,” Mr Ross said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read more background articles:

Where Liberalism Flourishes, Population Diminishes

Utopian Dream Shattered by Reality of Birth Rate

Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism

Environmentalism is the Greatest Threat to Civilization

Also read how low birth rates cause European nationalities to fear that they will cease to exist, especially Russia and even Germany.

Catholics Defeat ObamaCare: Appeals Court Ruling

The devout Roman Catholic brothers Francis and Philip M. Gilardi, owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio, sued the federal government to stop the onerous ObamaCare penalties imposed on them for their religious opposition to paying for abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations.  Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in their favor, an action likely to cause this case, and those similar, to be decided by the Supreme Court.

For background, read Bishops Say Catholic Church Will Defy ObamaCare and also read Christians Defeating ObamaCare, Obama's DOJ Surrenders as well as Federal Judge Rules Against ObamaCare, For Catholics

The battle:  Report Says Not Enough Abortions - ObamaCare the Answer and so ObamaCare Covers Abortion & Pays Abortionists

In addition, read Morning-After Abortifacient is Becoming the 'Contraceptive' Choice

-- From "Obamacare Birth Control Coverage Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional" by Karen Gullo, Bloomberg News 11/2/13

A provision of President Barack Obama’s health-care reforms requiring group insurance plans to cover contraceptives violates the constitutional right to religious freedom, a federal appeals court in Washington said.

“We must determine whether the contraceptive mandate imposed by the act trammels the right of free exercise -— a right that lies at the core of our constitutional liberties -— as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” wrote Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown. “We conclude it does.”

The case is Gilardi v. Department of Health and Human Services, 13-104, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington).

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court Rules Contraception Mandate Infringes on Religious Freedom" by Sarah Wheaton, New York Times 11/1/13

The ruling was largely in line with most others around the country so far. Of nearly 40 challenges, only a handful of courts have upheld the government’s requirement that employer health plans provide free birth control, emergency contraception and sterilization.

Francis A. Gilardi Jr. and Philip M. Gilardi, brothers from Sidney, Ohio, should not have to provide contraception coverage to employees of the companies they own if it goes against their Catholic faith, the court ruled. However, those companies themselves, Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, do not have the right to challenge the mandate on religious grounds, the court said.

“While this is a victory for the individual plaintiffs,” said Francis J. Manion, [of the American Center for Law and Justice] who argued the case, “the appeals court rejected a critical argument that the rights of the companies be protected as well.”

However, the question of companies’ rights is just a “procedural technicality,” said Eric Baxter, a senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has represented other high-profile challengers to the ban, including the craft store chain Hobby Lobby. The Supreme Court is expected to decide before Thanksgiving whether to review that or other cases about the mandate, Mr. Baxter said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "D.C. Appellate Court Rules Against Contraceptive Mandate in Affordable Care Act" by Dottie Perry, The Legal Examiner 11/1/13

A divided Federal court in the District of Columbia sided with more business owners who brought suit to challenge the Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) birth control mandate today. The court’s order expressly provided “a temporary reprieve from the mandate.”  The plaintiff business owners complained that the mandate violated their beliefs as Roman Catholics.

This D.C. Court of Appeals ruling is in line with at least nine other courts that have ruled against the contraceptive coverage mandate.

Dozens of additional suits have been, and continue to be, filed throughout the country. Most notably, Hobby Lobby, a craft store, has also filed suit over various ObamaCare mandates such as the contraceptive coverage requirement. Hobby Lobby sought and has been granted an expedited en banc hearing on the issue. Ultimately, this mandate will likely end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for final resolution.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals court deals blow to ObamaCare contraceptive mandate" by The Associated Press 11/2/13

[Judge Janice Rogers] Brown, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said that the mandate presented the Gilardis with a "Hobson's choice: They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong."

But Brown upheld the lower court's dismissal of an injunction for the brothers' companies, writing, "we have no basis for concluding a secular organization can exercise religion."

. . . Judge A. Raymond Randolph joined Brown's main conclusion about the Gilardis but dissented from her conclusions about Freshway companies' exercise of religion.

"Why limit the free-exercise right to religious organizations when many business corporations adhere to religious dogma?" asked Randolph, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush. "If non-religious organizations do not have free-exercise rights, why do non-religious natural persons (atheists, for example) possess them?"

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals Court Rules for the Gilardis but Leaves Key Questions Unresolved" by Francis J. Manion, American Center for Law and Justice 11/1/13

In [Friday's] decision, a majority of the Court agreed with our argument that the HHS Mandate places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion of the Gilardis in trying to run their business in accordance with their religious beliefs. But the Court declined to go further and also hold that the Gilardis’ companies, as such, also have free exercise claims that they can assert in court.

We are obviously pleased with the Court’s recognition that the Mandate burdens the Gilardis’ beliefs. At the same time, we believe we need to ask the Supreme Court to decide the question left unanswered so that there will be no ambiguity about the protection afforded by this decision. Therefore, we intend to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court next week.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion using ObamaCare

President Obama Says His Daughters Need ObamaCare's Free Contraceptives

President Obama Prays to an Unknown God

President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood

GOP House Rebuffs Conservatives' Religious Liberty

Yesterday the U.S. House leadership rushed passage of the "continuing resolution" (CR) legislation to fund the budgetless federal government for the rest of the fiscal year INCLUDING funding for ObamaCare to force Christians to fund abortifacients, sterilization, contraceptives, etc.  Fourteen Republicans voted against the bill.

Congressional proponents for religious liberty see the CR process as the best opportunity to force a religious conscience exemption into ObamaCare, because failure to pass the CR results in a full government shutdown before April.

“We want a resolution on this government assault on our first freedom. The House leadership should reconsider its decision not to place this language on the Continuing Resolution.”
-- Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

For background, click headlines below for previous articles:

Bishops Say Catholic Church Will Defy ObamaCare

Christians Oppose ObamaCare, Support Hobby Lobby

Supreme Court Allows Christians to Sue ObamaCare

Bishops Slam Obama: Criminal in Eyes of God

Bishops Warn Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin'

The question for Christians to discern: Are Republicans abandoning a God-fearing Party platform?

-- From "House approves bill to fund government through September" by Reuters 3/6/13

The House bill was passed by 267 votes to 151. It gives President Barack Obama's administration flexibility in how it will achieve savings in defense and veterans' programs that are required as part of the $85 billion [sequester] automatic spending cuts that began on Friday.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Right jabs GOP inaction on Obamacare" by Ginger Gibson, Politico 3/7/13

So far, the CR, the legislation that will keep the government funded through March 27, is progressing with minimal drama, with both sides trying to avoid a shutdown. Democrats have mostly abandoned efforts to completely undo the sequester through the bill. Republicans have left out the kind of language that would delight the base but meet a quick end in the Senate.

But some conservative leaders are fuming that Republicans, particularly in the House where the GOP controls the chamber, didn’t at least trying to attach language to eliminate Obamacare through the legislation.

. . . Tony Perkins, head of the conservative Family Research Council, said Democrats were successful while in the minority with attaching party priorities to “must-pass” legislation but Republicans haven’t followed that model.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "GOP House Approves CR That Funds All Obamacare--Including Regulation Attacking Religious Freedom" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 3/6/13

On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Rules Committee rejected a request by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R.-Okla.) to allow the full House to simply vote on an amendment to the CR sponsored by Bridenstine, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R.-Kans.) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R.-Fla.) that would have stripped funding from implementation of Obamacare.

. . . 14 Republican House members, led by Rep. Diane Black (R.-Tenn.) and Rep. John Fleming (R.-La.), wrote Boehner and Cantor last week asking them to include language in the CR that would reverse the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation in order to protect the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

. . . Bridenstine then asked the Rules Committee on Wednesday--when it approved the rule that would govern House floor proceeding on the CR--to allow a vote on his amendment. The Rules Committee, however, rejected Bridenstine's request and refused to allow the rank and file members of the House to even vote on the proposition of defunding Obamacare.

The Republican leaders did not include language in their CR to reverse this regulation--even though Boehner himself had declared in a House floor speech on Feb. 8, 2012 that the regulation was a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion and that Congress would not let it stand.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "GOP Leaders Urged to Include Religious Freedom Protection in Gov't Funding Bill" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 3/6/13

Radio talk show host Janet Parshall also spoke at the press conference. She expressed concern that the government is moving from protecting religious freedom to only protecting freedom of worship.

"When it becomes freedom of worship, rather than a freedom of religion, what the government is telling us in so many terms is you can believe what you want to believe as long as it's in the four walls of your church or your home, but, sorry, you can't take it out to the public square," Parshall said.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and executive editor for The Christian Post, echoed Parshall's concerns.

"Freedom of religion," Land said, "leaves citizens of faith free to bring their religious convictions to bear in every arena of life, and to use those convictions to critique injustice ... The church is now faced with a stark choice in America. Is it going to be the confessing church, or is it going to be the lapdog church?"

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "FRC’s Perkins to House GOP Leaders: Ban 'This Government Assault on Our First Freedom'" by Patrick Burke, CNSNews.com 3/6/13

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have refused to allow the language barring funding for the HHS mandate from being included in any Continuing Resolution, opting instead to allow a stand-alone bill to proceed to a vote.

“We are grateful for the members of Congress like (Reps.) Diane Black (R-Tenn.), John Fleming (R-La.) and Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), who are keeping this issue at the forefront by introducing this piece of stand-alone legislation,” Perkins said.

“But the reality is,” he added, “a stand-alone bill will never pass the United States Senate and be signed by the president dealing with this important issue. It has to be on a must-pass piece of legislation like the CR.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "House GOP Proposes Healthcare Conscience Act" by John Jessup, CBN News Washington Correspondent 3/7/13

The measure, introduced by Reps. Diane Black, R-Tenn., Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., and John Fleming, R-La., is designed to protect the rights of pro-life employers, insurers and medical workers.

The idea is to give them the right to go to court if they're forced to take part in procedures that violate their religious or moral beliefs.

The move is solely a GOP effort spear-headed by a handful of House Republicans.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



From "Cruz amendment would defund Obamacare" by Ginger Gibson, Politico 3/6/13

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) will offer an amendment to the continuing resolution – the bill to keep the government open after March 27 — that would defund the Affordable Care Act.

“The very first priority of every elected official—Democrat and Republican—should be restoring economic growth, so we can ensure continued strength, prosperity, and opportunity for the next generations,” Cruz said in a statement. “Obamacare does precisely the opposite. It is already hurting small businesses, reducing the hours Americans are allowed to work, forcing employers to drop coverage, and leading to substantial increases in healthcare premiums—especially for young people.”

Cruz’s effort is unlikely to make any progress in the Democrat-controlled Senate. But he’s still going to try.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion even though Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity

It comes down to Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism in America

Bishops Slam Obama: Criminal in Eyes of God

Catholic bishops launched multiple salvos at President Obama this week, blasting his abortion advocacy as "shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God" and torpedoing his latest so-called compromise on ObamaCare's attack on religious liberty -- a proposal labeled as "nothing but another accounting gimmick."  In response, the Obama administration "blew off" the bishops' statements.

ObamaCare demonstrates that, left unchecked, “government would seek to compel religious institutions to provide abortion services in the future. . . . In my view, those who voted for President Obama bear the responsibility for a step deeper in the culture of death.”
-- Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y.

Too late now:  Bishops Warn Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin'

For background, read Supreme Court Allows Christians to Sue ObamaCare and also read Bishops Say Catholic Church Will Defy ObamaCare as well as Christians Oppose ObamaCare, Support Hobby Lobby

-- From "Bishops Reject Birth Control Compromise" by Robert Pear, New York Times 2/7/13

The [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, USCCB] said they would continue fighting the federal mandate in court.

The [Obama] administration said the proposal, issued last Friday, would guarantee free employee coverage of birth control “while respecting religious concerns” of organizations that objected to paying or providing for it.

The bishops said the proposal seemed to address part of their concern about the definition of religious employers who could be exempted from the requirement to offer contraceptive coverage at no charge to employees. But they said it did not go far enough and failed to answer many questions, like who would pay for birth control coverage provided to employees of certain nonprofit religious organizations.

The administration had no immediate reaction to the bishops’ statement, other than to say it was not a surprise.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Catholic Bishop: Obama Is 'Proponent' of What is 'Shameful and Criminal in the Eyes of Almighty God’" by Michael W. Chapman, CNSNews.com 2/6/13

Nicholas DiMarzio, the Catholic bishop of the diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y.,  says that in his zealous support for abortion, President Barack Obama has used his position not to help mothers and children in difficult circumstances but instead has been an advocate for that which “is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God.”

In his column for the diocesan newspaper The Tablet, entitled “Deeper Into the Culture of Death,” Bishop DiMarzio [wrote] . . . “The so-called ‘pro-choice’ movement has its roots in the ideology of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who understood her call to be one who would ‘assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit,’” states Bishop DiMarzio.  “Of course, a young Barack Obama was precisely the sort of unfit child that Sanger and her allies would want to eliminate.”

“Tragically, the President has not been an advocate for those young children faced with similarly difficult circumstances,” says Bp. DiMarzio. “He has chosen to use the bully pulpit not to call upon us all to be nobler and to embrace each child, regardless of origins and circumstances; rather, he has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Catholic Bishops oppose revisions to contraception mandate" by Sam Baker, The Hill 2/7/13

The USCCB said the policy will require Catholic institutions to have a hand in healthcare coverage they find immoral.

The group was initially noncommittal last week after the Obama administration released new regulations on the contraception mandate and its "accommodations" for religious-affiliated institutions, such as Catholic hospitals and universities.

"It appears that the government would require all employees in our 'accommodated' ministries to have the illicit coverage — they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children — under a separate policy," [president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Timothy] Dolan said.

Although billed as another accommodation to religious groups that oppose contraception, the regulations released last Friday made only minor changes to the substance of the policy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Bishops reject contraception rule change" by Jennifer Haberkorn and Kathryn Smith, Foxnews.com 2/8/13

. . . Dolan criticized the administration’s “narrow” definition of a religious organization. He also objected to religious-affiliated institutions having to find an intermediary that would provide the contraceptive coverage — part of the compromise the administration had outlined. He also noted that the new White House policy did not address the objections of religious owners of for-profit businesses.

“In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath,” Dolan said, referring to these business owners. “We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.”

The Obama administration said that religion-affiliated institutions — such as a Catholic school or Christian hospital — could kick the responsibility to cover contraceptives to a third-party administrator, who would find an insurance policy that would cover contraception. But it did not appease concerns from religious organizations that did not want their employment tied to birth control or drugs that they feel cause abortions — in any manner.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "No Deal! Bishops to Administration: You Can't Force Lay Catholics to Act Against Faith" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 2/7/13

The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic laypersons dedicated to advancing the principles of the Catholic Church, issued a statement supporting the bishops' stand in defending the religious freedom of all Americans.

"The bishops have recognized in their statement that when the religious freedom of one is compromised, the religious freedom of everyone is compromised, whether they be their own affiliated institutions or non-Catholic institutions or for-profit employers," said the association. "We call on this administration to provide an acceptable exemption for people of faith, and to put an end to its anti-religious liberty policies.”

“. . . the bishops explained that the ‘HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said Cardinal Dolan, citing the bishops' unanimous declaration. “This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it. Friday's action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this ‘third class.’”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Bishops call new mandate proposal insufficient" by Michelle Bauman, Catholic News Agency 2/7/13

Under the new [ObamaCare] proposal . . . an employer would qualify for the exemption if it fell under Internal Revenue Code, Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which “refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”

Therefore, religious institutions that are not affiliated with a church – such as many Catholic health care, education and charity institutions – do not appear to be covered by the exemption. These groups still appear to be given “second-class status” that is not deemed worthy of a religious exemption, Cardinal Dolan said.

He also noted that the new proposals would appear to require all employees in the accommodated ministries to carry the contraceptive coverage under a separate policy, leaving them no option to opt out for themselves or their children.

The proposed revisions offer no protection to for-profit businesses owners who have religious or moral objections to the mandate. Nor do they cover non-profit groups that have no specific religious affiliation, such as many pro-life groups around the country.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion even though Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity

Fiscal Cliff: Be UNfruitful and Do NOT Multiply

Besides encouraging sexual deviancy and immorality, schizophrenic American government continues to expand myriad programs that lower birth rates (reducing pregnancy rates through contraceptives/sterilization and advocating abortion) while simultaneously expanding entitlement programs that demand an ever growing population to fund them.

Is there any question America is headed for bankruptcy (both moral and fiscal)?

For background, read To Cut Costs, Lower Birth Rate, Says White House and also read Census Shows Fewer Children - Aborted Ones Missing as well as Abortion Rates Drop as Restrictions Increase (and pregnancy decreases), and get this: Obama's Free Abortifacients Reduce Abortions - uh?

-- From "Uncle Sam’s Ponzi finance" by Norman Poltenson, publisher of The Central New York Business Journal 1/4/13

Our largest entitlement programs — Social Security and Medicare — are both built on [the first German Chancellor, Otto von] Bismarck’s model: current workers support retirees. Today’s politicians, however, ignore the changes that have occurred in the last 123 years. In 2013, life expectancy has doubled, but the retirement age has remained relatively static. Compounding this problem is a declining birth rate that is less than half the rate when social insurance was introduced, and a declining participation rate in the workforce. The iron chancellor also never anticipated politicians, elected to feel the public’s pain, who couldn’t say “no” to the growth of entitlements by putting them on budget autopilot. Nor have our politicians come to grips with the explosion of technology that demands a highly educated workforce. The failure of our public primary and secondary-education system means fewer educated workers to support the retirees.

The impending implosion is seen in the 2012 federal spending numbers. . . .

To see the dismal numbers and the conclusion, CLICK HERE to read the entire opinion column above.

From "Census Bureau Lowers U.S. Growth Forecast, Mainly Due to Reduced Immigration and Births" by D’Vera Cohn, Pew Research Center 12/14/12

The Census Bureau’s new national population projections released this week forecast markedly lower growth for the nation in the coming decades—especially from immigration—than the last official projection in 2008. In fact, the bureau’s new projected population of 420.3 million in 2060 is below its previous projection of 439 million for a decade earlier, in 2050. The bureau’s new projected population for 2050 is 399.8 million.

A comparison of the bureau’s 2008 and 2012 projections for the year 2050 indicates that most of the 39.2 million gap in the total population forecast is due to scaled-back assumptions about the level of new immigration to the U.S. But another notable factor in the lowered population projection was that the bureau also lowered its forecasts for birth levels.

The Census Bureau’s new projections include a population gain from births by 2050 that is 17.8 million lower than it had forecast only four years ago. From 2012 through 2050, the Census Bureau projects a total of 175.4 million births, compared with 193.2 million in its 2008 projections.

The Census Bureau projection included a forecast for the total fertility rate, which is the expected number of children that a typical woman will have during her lifetime, based on current-year birth rates for each age group. The total, 2.0 in 2012, is projected to decline to 1.91 by 2060. By then, the Census Bureau said, but only the Hispanic population will have a rate (2.15) large enough to replace itself.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "America’s demographic squeeze - Double bind" posted at The Economist 12/15/12

The new [population] projections, based on the 2010 census, are based on recent trends in fertility and immigration. The number of babies born per 1,000 women of childbearing age (also called the “general” fertility rate) fell to 63 in the 12 months that ended in June of this year, the lowest since at least 1920, and well below the recent high of 69 recorded in 2007. That is partly because the average age of women of childbearing age has increased. The “total” fertility rate adjusts for the age of the population and extrapolates how many children each woman will have over her lifetime. This, too, has fallen, and at 1.9 it is below the replacement rate of 2.1. America’s fertility rate is still higher than the average for the OECD, but has fallen sharply since 2007.

. . . Structural as well as cyclical factors are at work. Mark Mather of the Population Reference Bureau, a research outfit, notes that couples have been getting married ever later in life; in 2011 the median age at first marriage was 28.7 and 26.5 for men and women respectively, the highest on record. A rising share of women in their early 40s are childless. In this respect America may be following the experience of Europe.

Though it will be two decades before today’s lower fertility affects the ranks of workers, America can ill afford it. Growth in its labour force has slowed dramatically since the recession; in November it was only 1% larger than at the end of 2007, a period in which the working-age population grew by 5%. This is partly because of the weak economy, which has driven many people into early retirement, others on to disability payments, and some out of the job hunt altogether. Nevertheless, the Congressional Budget Office sees the potential labour force (that is, after excluding purely cyclical influences) as growing by only 0.5% a year in the coming decade, largely because the population is ageing. That puts ever more of the burden of supporting old-age benefits on a stagnant population of workers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "U.S. birth rate falls to record low as immigrant women choose to have smaller families as they aspire to join the upper middle class" by James Nye, UK Daily Mail 1/1/13

The decline in birthrates was seen to be heaviest among Mexican-American women and those women who had immigrated from Mexico, falling as much as 25.7 percent.

Despite enjoying the highest fertility rates in the country, both immigrant and native-born Latinas are choosing to have smaller families - leaving them with bithrates smaller than non-Hispanic Whites, black and Asians.

This is a complete turnaround in a trend which saw immigrant mothers account for a rising share of births within the United States.

. . . interviews with younger Latinas, who said that for them the reasons for having fewer children is because they have greater access to contraception [and government-funded sterilization] and women's health education [such as Planned Parenthood].

The new figures have led in part to the total number of American births for 2011 falling to a record low - and around half of what it was during the baby boom years.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "United States Faces Demographic Bomb, Coming Underpopulation Problems" by Arland K. Nichols, Director of Education and Evangelization at Human Life International, and Executive Editor of the Truth and Charity Forum 11/28/12

Surely a looming demographic explosion justifies the Affordable Care Act, and its oft-critiqued HHS mandate that offers contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs with no out of pocket costs. Supporters of the stimulus plans stated that fewer births would lead to cost savings for financially strapped states, and the HHS mandate was justified by the Institute of Medicine because “cost savings due to contraceptive use [are] estimated to be 19.3 billion.”

. . . Unfortunately, this perception is far from reality. There is no baby-boom – there is a birth-dearth. And, yes, there is economic stagnation and looming long-term economic decline, but this is exacerbated (or perhaps caused by) the decline in birth rates.

We have witnessed this in the disastrous economic situation throughout Europe, which is due in part to extremely low birth rates. Europe’s fate appears increasingly likely for the United States. We are not having enough babies to replace our current population levels. More specifically, married couples are having too few children, and increasingly, babies are being born outside of the stable environment of a home with a mother and father.

. . . Preliminary numbers indicate that 3,953,593 babies were born in the United States in 2011. This is a drop of 1% from 2010 and nearly a 10% drop since 2007. Last year, the general fertility rate was 63.2 births per 1000 women, which is the lowest rate ever reported for the United States.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion Effect: U.S. Seeing Slowest Population Growth Since 1930" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 12/31/12

Abortion has destroyed not only one generation of Americans but a second as well — people who should be boosting the fertility rate in their childbearing years now who were victims of abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. In total, more than 55 million Americans are been victimized by abortions and millions more were never born because their parents were aborted.

. . . At the current pace, the nation’s population will grow by 7.3 percent during the decade, the lowest level since the 7.25 percent increase recorded between 1930 and 1940, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

In population studies, at least 2.1 kids per household are needed to maintain stable population. The average number of kids per household today is about 2.0 in this country, which isn’t even meeting the replacement level of 2.1 needed to maintain the population for future generations to come. The slow growth in the United States population seen in recent years is due to immigration and people living longer.

To read the opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "62 percent of U.S. women use contraception" by UPI 12/6/12

Sixty-two percent of U.S. women of reproductive age used contraception, mostly birth control and sterilization, during 2006-2010, officials say.

Jo Jones, William Mosher and Kimberly Daniels of the Division of Vital Statistics, National Health Statistics Reports -- part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- said their report presented national estimates of contraceptive use among women of childbearing ages 15-44 from 2006 to 2010.

Of the women using a contraceptive in the month of the interview, 10.6 million women, or 28 percent, used birth control, while 10.2 million women, or 27 percent, said they used sterilization.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hospitals, red tape may be limiting tubal ligations" by Trevor Stokes, Reuters Health 12/28/12

Women in California and Texas have varying access to "getting their tubes tied" immediately after giving birth, according to a new study, but the reasons are still unclear researchers say.

Differences in federal funding could explain some of the discrepancies. Federal funds through Title X and Medicaid programs reach more women in California than Texas . . .

Nonetheless, surgical sterilization remains very popular in the U.S. and nearly a third of women with children use it for family planning purposes, according to some estimates.

A 2011 study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, found that tubal sterilization was performed following every one in 13 births in the U.S. between 2001 and 2008 . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Now that free sterilizations are being pushed by ObamaCare, the rates will certainly increase.

Also read 44% of 'Middle America' Births are Out of Wedlock

Judges Rule Against ObamaCare, Favor Christians

In a series of court cases wherein Christian businesses have challenged the right of ObamaCare to infringe religious liberty, judges have ruled against President Obama's expansive federal government.  On Friday, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton favored Tyndale House Publishers of Illinois by granting a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of anti-Christian elements of ObamaCare.

For background, click headlines below for related articles:

Federal Judge Rules Against ObamaCare, For Catholics

Missouri Business Sues ObamaCare in War on Christianity

Bishops Say Catholic Church Will Defy ObamaCare

Evangelical Wheaton College Sues ObamaCare

Also read Supreme Court OKs Taxes for Abortion: ObamaCare

-- From "Bible Publisher Won’t Have to Fund Birth Control Coverage" by Tom Schoenberg, Bloomberg Businessweek 11/16/12

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton in Washington today ruled that the law’s coverage mandate “substantially burdens” the religious exercise of Tyndale House Publishers Inc. by imposing “considerable” financial penalties for failing to offer birth control coverage to its 260 full-time employees.

The mandate “places the plaintiffs in the untenable position of choosing either to violate their religious beliefs by providing coverage of the contraceptives at issue or to subject their business to the continual risk of the imposition of enormous penalties for its noncompliance,” Walton wrote.

That “places substantial pressure on the plaintiffs to violate their beliefs,” the judge wrote in issuing a preliminary injunction

The case is Tyndale House Publishers Inc. v. Sebelius, 12- cv-01635, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge sides with company on contraceptive coverage" by Frederic J. Frommer, Associated Press 11/16/12

Walton acknowledged that the government has broad, compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring that women have equal access to health care, but he said the question "is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests," underlying "to the plaintiffs" in the text. Nothing in Walton's order applied to anyone other than Tyndale.

Walton said that the government hasn't offered any proof that mandatory insurance for the specific types of contraceptives that Tyndale objects to furthers the government's compelling interests.

Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers "should be free to do business according to the book that they publish."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal Judge Grants Bible Publisher Injunction Against Obamacare’s Abortion Pill Mandate" by Heather Clark, Christian News Network 11/16/12

Mark D. Taylor, the president and CEO of Tyndale House Publishers, filed the lawsuit last month with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). While Taylor says that he does not oppose all contraception, and will provide coverage of some birth control products to his employees, he cannot cover the two pills that he believes cause abortions — Plan B and IUD’s.

“[Tyndale is] committed to biblical principles including the belief that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God from the moment of their conception,” the lawsuit read.

The Obama administration had opposed the injunction, claiming that the Bible publisher shouldn’t be considered eligible for an exemption because it is for-profit.

“Christian principles, prayer, and activities are pervasive at Tyndale, and the company’s ownership structure is designed to ensure that it never strays from its faith-oriented mission,” Walton declared today. “The Court has no reason to doubt, moreover, that Tyndale’s religious objection to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives reflects the beliefs of Tyndale’s owners. Nor is there any dispute that Tyndale’s primary owner, the Foundation, can ‘exercise religion’ in its own right, given that it is a non-profit religious organization; indeed, the case law is replete with examples of such organizations asserting cognizable free exercise and RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] challenges.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court Halts Contraceptive Mandate for Christian Publisher Tyndale" by Lillian Kwon, Christian Post Reporter 11/17/12

"Although there is arguably a public interest in the uniform application of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) and the contraceptive coverage mandate there is undoubtedly also a public interest in ensuring that the rights secured under the First Amendment and, by extension, the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), are protected," the judge wrote in his opinion. "Indeed, First Amendment rights are among the most precious rights guaranteed under the Constitution."

The contraceptive coverage mandate became effective on Oct. 1, prompting Tyndale to file suit or otherwise face heavy fines and penalties for noncompliance.

Alliance Defending Freedom represented Tyndale in the case. ADF's Matt Bowman said the court did "the right thing" in halting the mandate while the lawsuit moves forward. ADF is also defending more than half a dozen other organizations in separate challenges against the contraceptive mandate

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "3rd judge vetoes abortion pill mandate" posted at World Net Daily 11/17/12

Officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom said [President Obama's] government attorneys had argued that Tyndale House Publishers simply wasn’t religious enough for an exemption from the mandate.

. . . Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, who argued before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Nov. 9 [said,] “. . . For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is startling. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is willing to disregard the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom to achieve certain political purposes.”

The “mandate” is a set of regulations adopted by Barack Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services, run by the emphatically pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius, that forces employers, regardless of religious faith, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception under threat of financial penalties.

In the case involving Tyndale, the publisher is subject to the mandate because Obama administration rules say for-profit corporations are categorically non-religious, even though Tyndale House is strictly a publisher of Bibles and other Christian materials and is primarily owned by the non-profit Tyndale House Foundation. The foundation provides grants to help meet the physical and spiritual needs of people around the world.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Bible Publisher Beats Obama Abortion-HHS Mandate in Court" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 11/16/12

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and allied attorneys are also litigating five other lawsuits against the mandate: one in Minnesota on behalf of Annex Medical, Inc.; one in Indiana on behalf of Grote Industries; another one in Indiana on behalf of Indiana’s Grace College and Seminary and California’s Biola University; one in Pennsylvania on behalf of Geneva College and The Seneca Hardwood Lumber Company and its owners, the Hepler family; and one in Louisiana on behalf of Louisiana College. The lawsuits represent a large cross-section of Protestants and Catholics who object to the mandate.

Federal judges have dismissed two other lawsuits filed against the mandate.

In the second case, Judge James E. Boasberg of the D.C. Federal Court threw out the lawsuit Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina, the first plaintiff to file suit against the mandate, filed earlier this year. Judge Boasberg said he dismissed the lawsuit because the Obama administration is revising the initial rule it release forcing religious groups to pay for the drugs that violate their conscience and beliefs.

Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic university, said before the decision he thought the Obama administrations argument will not stand up in court.

“It doesn’t argue that the mandate is legal; it doesn’t argue that the mandate is constitutional,” Goodrich said. “Instead, it begs the court to ignore the lawsuit because the government plans to change the mandate at some unspecified date in the future.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity and also read Religious Liberty & Anti-Christian Totalitarianism

Fed. Judge Rules Against ObamaCare, For Catholics

U.S. District Court Judge John Kane issued an injunction against enforcement of the ObamaCare regulation requiring a Denver Catholic family-owned business to violate it's religious beliefs. In the case, President Obama's Department of Justice argued that Catholics who don't want to pay for abortifacient drugs, etc. via their health insurance, can simply fold their businesses to avoid violation of their religious conscience.

For background, read Missouri Business Sues ObamaCare in War on Christianity and also read Evangelical Wheaton College Sues ObamaCare as well as Bishops Throw Down Gauntlet: Obama War on Christianity

UPDATE 3/15/13: U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff rules for Catholic Tom Monaghan of Domino's Pizza by granting a preliminary injunction against ObamaCare fines

UPDATE 11/2/12: Michigan federal district Judge Robert Cleland blocks ObamaCare, favoring Daniel Weingartz's family-owned Catholic business

UPDATE 9/14/12: Retailer Hobby Lobby, owned by Evangelical family, sues ObamaCare

UPDATE 7/29/12 - Fox News interviews Mr. Newland and attorney (video):


UPDATE 7/31/12 - Fox News interview (America Live video):


-- From "Colo. employer wins early round on birth control" by Catherine Tsai, Associated Press 7/27/12

The Obama administration's health care package requires group health plans to offer no-cost preventive care coverage to women for items including birth control. The Colorado-based heating and air conditioning business Hercules Industries Inc. is run by a family whose Roman Catholic beliefs condemn contraception, but the company doesn't qualify as a religious employer exempt from providing the coverage. Under the legislation, Hercules would soon have to offer it.

Hercules Industries, owned by William Newland and his siblings, sought relief in court.

The Newlands say they are trying to run their company in a way that reflects their religious beliefs. The federal government has argued that a for-profit, secular corporation can't exercise religion.

[Judge Kane] said the government's argument that exempting Hercules Industries would hurt its ability to administer the health care law was undermined by exemptions for more than 190 million health plan participants and beneficiaries.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge blocks contraception mandate in religious liberty lawsuit" by Joel Gehrke, Commentary Writer, The Washington Examiner 7/28/12

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; accordingly, the right to relief must be clear and unequivocal,” Judge John Kane — an appointee of President Jimmy Carter’s — wrote as he explained his order today. “On balance, the threatened harm to Plaintiffs, impingement of their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and the concommittant public interest in that right s[t]rongly favor the entry of injunctive relief.”

“Can a corporation exercise religion?” Kane asked in his order. “Should a closely-held subchapter-s corporation owned and operated by a small group of individuals professing adherence to uniform religious beliefs be treated differently than a publicly held corporation owned and operated by a group of stakeholders with diverse religious beliefs? Is it possible to ‘pierce the veil’ and disregard the corporate form in this context? What is the significance of the pass-through taxation applicable to subchapter-s corporations as it pertains to this analysis? These questions merit more deliberate investigation.”

Kane stressed that only Hercules enjoys this preliminary injunction. “This injunction is, however, premised upon the alleged substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion – not to any alleged burden on any other party’s free exercise of religion,” he wrote. “It does not enjoin enforcement of the preventive care coverage mandate against any other party.”

The lawsuit was brought by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of the owners of Hercules Industries, Inc. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "DOJ to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 7/26/12

“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Under the Obamacare law, businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate, the insurance must include the cost-sharing-free sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefit. The regulation takes effect on Aug. 1, which means that as soon as any business starts a new plan-year for its health-insurance program after that date it will need to comply with [HHS Secretary] Sebelius's rule.

[In the case, the] Justice Department responded by arguing that if the Newlands’ Roman Catholic faith prevented them from following the Obama administration’s command that they provide their employees with cost-sharing-free coverage for sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs, the Newlands could simply give up their business entirely.

The Justice Department further argued that people owning for-profit secular businesses do not have a First Amendment right to the free exercise religion in the way they conduct their businesses—particularly if their business is incorporated.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hercules Halts Obamacare in Round One of Anti-Conscience Mandate Fight" by John G. Malcolm and Dominique Ludvigson, posted at Heritage Foundation 7/29/12

The Administration, according to Judge Kane, argued that “as a for-profit, secular employer, Hercules cannot engage in an exercise of religion.” In other words, the company owners forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they sought to earn a living by running a corporation. Under that logic, if the government decided to require any business that served or prepared food to offer pork, kosher or halal butchers would be forced to forgo their most deeply held religious convictions in order to stay in business. Accepting the government’s position would effectively push religion out of every sphere of public life and restrict the free exercise rights of adherents to live out their faiths in their day-to-day lives. The plaintiffs presented a strong argument that RFRA’s religious liberty guarantee is not limited to individuals alone acting within their houses of worship.

Judge Kane’s decision identified two key portions of the company’s articles of incorporation reflecting the role of religion in its corporate governance—a statement that its primary purposes were to be achieved by “following appropriate religious, ethical or moral standards” and another that directed its board to prioritize those “religious, ethical or moral standards” at the expense of profitability.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.