Take Your Religious Freedom & Shove It!… Federal Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against ObamaTax HHS Mandate
A federal judge from Nebraska threw out the lawsuit against the ObamaTax HHS mandate today.
Life News reported:
A federal judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by attorneys general of several states against the Obama HHS mandate that requires to religious employers to pay for or refer women for abortion-causing drugs and birth control in violation of their religious liberties.
U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom of Lincoln, Nebraska dismissed the case the state attorney general there filed with several other colleagues from across the nation. he said the states did not have standing in court to bring the lawsuit against the Obamacare HHS mandate.
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning’s office brought the lawsuit along with attorneys general of Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. Catholic Social Services, Pius X High School and the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America joined the Nebraska case against the mandate.
A Lincoln Journal Star report on the decision provided more details about the judge’s reason for dismissing the legal challenge:
Urbom sided with the U.S. Justice Department, which argued that the plaintiffs did not show that they faced the immediate threat of having to offer the coverage, because the federal government delayed enforcement of the rule until August 2013. That so-called “safe harbor” provision is to allow accommodations to be worked out for some religious groups.
The Justice Department also said the states lacked the legal grounds to sue over the provision because they don’t enjoy First Amendment protections.
“Although the rule that lies at the heart of the plaintiffs’ complaint establishes a definitive, final definition of ‘religious employer,’ the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirements are not being enforced against non-exempted religious organizations, and the rule is currently undergoing a process of amendment to accommodate these organizations,” Urbom said.
“The plaintiffs face no direct and immediate harm, and one can only speculate whether the plaintiffs will ever feel any effects from the rule when the temporary enforcement safe harbor terminates. This case clearly involves ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,’ … and therefore it is not ripe for review.