The above link is to an amici curiae brief submitted by the Cato Institute and Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty.
The Constitutional and legal questions presented to the Supreme Court in this case are as follows:
Whether the agencies had authority under the ACA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate.
(Cato would answer this no and in addition would nullify the exemptions and accommodations from 2016 as well.)
Whether the agenciesâ promulgation of the interim rules without notice and an opportunity for public comment rendered procedurally invalid the final rules that the agencies later issued after notice and an opportunity for public comment.
(Moot due to answer on question 1.)
Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.
(Moot due to answer on question 1.)
The Cato brief suggests that the Executive Branch has no authority to grant exemptions or accommodations to the birth control mandate under the ACA. They suggest that the Supreme Court strike down the exemptions and accommodations granted both by the Obama and Trump administrations and reinstate the full mandate against Little Sisters.
But, before you get your hackles up.
Cato posits that the Executive Branch has a positive duty, under the Take Care Clause, to remedy violations of the Free Exercise Clause under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They posit that the President, under the Take Care Clause, can act to grant exemptions to any statute when free exercise of religion is legitimately burdened.
So basically Cato would have the Supreme Court rule for Respondents in this case, thus restoring the mandates in full.
Little Sisters then could petition the President for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If they donât get the relief asked for, then they could return to the courts, asking for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
I like Catoâs approach. It is supported both by the Constitution and statute, whereas the current approach may have support under the Constitution, but no support in statute.
Itâs a human being, thatâs really all that matters to me as long as it isnât threatening the life of the mother. In that case it becomes a matter of self defense rather than an elective abortion.
I wish those on the left could have one 1 percent of the compassion that they have for a woman who lives a reckless and impulsive life style, on a group of women who have vowed to live a life of celibacy, poverty, and meekness, caring for the poor and elderly.
You should have practiced the latter , without neglecting the former
If these folks could have, they would of stoned Mother Theresa for not supporting abortion.
While weâre at it, the Unaffordable Care Act has totally short changed young adults.
Why should they be forced to buy coverage with services included that they wonât be using, at least not for 20+ years?
A 25 year old man is going for a colonoscopy? Hell no! A 30 year old woman is going for a mammogram? Hell no!
There actually is a male pap that looks for signs of change in anal cells, but that cancer is more prevalent in gay and bi men, who are about, what, 2% of the population?
A young man probably wonât be wanting the free bc, and heck, maybe some of these individuals are in married relationships and wanting a baby.
They shouldnât be forced into this one size fits all nonsense. It shouldnât even have been offered to the American public. Neither the Little Sisters of the Poor, nor anybody, should be forced to pay for it.
