Roberts refuses to grant Obamacare emergency stay

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has refused a group of doctors' request to block implementation of the nation's new health care law.

Chief Justice John Roberts turned away without comment Monday an emergency stay request from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. and the Alliance for Natural Health USA.

They asked the chief justice Friday to temporarily block the law, saying Congress had passed it incorrectly by starting it in the Senate instead of the House. Revenue-raising bills are supposed to originate in the lower chamber. They also wanted blocked doctor registration requirements they say will make it harder for independent non-Medicare physicians to treat Medicare-eligible patients.

Still pending is a decision on a temporary block on the law's contraceptive coverage requirements, which was challenged by a group of nuns.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140106/DAB5HJO82.html

[Iliyah]

1. These are doctors who don't give a fuck about the uninsured.

[valerief]

45. Just like the Supreme Court. nt

[Richard D]

2. A bit of infor

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a group of conservative activist doctors who oppose the 2010 health care reform law, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."[1] Members of the group also believe that President Obama may have hypnotized voters and that climate legislation is a threat to human health. Some of the group's former leaders were members of the John Birch Society. Mother Jones wrote of the group, "Yet despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD."[2]

The group describes itself as "a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country. Since 1943, AAPS has been dedicated to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine."[3]

snip

The publication's archives present a kind of alternate-universe scientific world, in which abortion causes breast cancer and vaccines cause autism, but HIV does not cause AIDS. Cutting carbon emissions represents a grave threat to global health (because environmental regulation would make people poorer and, consequently, sicker) ... The organization opposes some of the most accepted practices in health care, including mandatory vaccine regulations. Peer review, a long-standing hospital practice that helps doctors learn from and prevent errors, is viewed as the source of great injustice by AAPS, which fights attempts to micromanage doctors with such bureaucratic nuisances as medical evidence about what works and what doesn't. Computers, too, are an ominous threat. The organization has resisted the use of electronic medical records—which, naturally, represents an attempt by the government to acquire masses of private information about American citizens. (AAPS' executive director claims to keep all her patient notes in longhand.)[9]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

[blackspade]

5. Is there a list of their members?

It would be good to avoid these wack-jobs.

[tofuandbeer]

21. +1 ...I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Bryce Butler]

29. I couldn't find a complete list

but I did find where Ron and Rand Paul are members.

[geardaddy]

56. Surprise! Surprise!

[Cha]

8. I wondered, wth! You'd think Drs would want people

to be Covered.

"Hypnotized voters".. what a bunch of freaking quack quacks.

thanks for enlightening, Richard

[freshwest]

12. OMGawd. Worst tripe ever! Made it to SCOTUS, too. Bush federal appointees? n/t

[3catwoman3]

15. Good old Paul...

..."Lies from the pit of Hell" Broun must surely be a member of this organization.

[weissmam]

32. with wing nuts like this its too bad you have to be nice

[Fantastic Anarchist]

40. "Think Glenn Beck with an MD."

I shudder at that very thought.

[Ikonoklast]

57. "You need to snort a kilo of coke a week for the next six weeks."

"And drink a bottle of Jack Daniels every day for ten days, get back to me sooner if you start to hallucinate."

[Fantastic Anarchist]

58. That doesn't sound half bad.

[Duval]

42. Great info, Richard D. Thanks! n/t

[hue]

3. Great news!!! Moving right along--->to the nutty nuns...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Correct me if wrong

But the House and Senate both passed bills but the House ultimately adopted the Senate version so that it could become law because the Senate didn't have the votes to pass the public option in the House bill and/or didn't have the votes to pass it again or something?

[Maraya1969]

6. I remember it was something like that. Some people rant on and on about that making

the law illegal. The fact that it became law kind of detracts from that statement.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. Not to mention the fact

That SCOTUS could have- but obviously didn't- invalidate the law on those grounds. It has already affirmed the constitutionality of the law, so these people are just grasping at straws- as usual.

[unblock]

51. the "senate version" was technically an amenment to an unrelated house bill that was laying about.

it had to do with a tax break for service members. in any event, it originated in the house. the senate completely rewrote it, making the "senate proposal" technically an amendment to a house bill.

so, no constitutional problem.


this lawsuit is either symptomatic of lazy people believing the non-fact checked faux news propaganda, or a concerted effort to distract the obama administration with meritless legal action.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

55. I'm sure it is

and it looks like even Chief Justice Roberts sees it as such- at least in regards towards their request for an emergency stay.

[Maraya1969]

7. Sometimes nuns can be jerks.

[awoke_in_2003]

23. Sometimes? nt

[lostincalifornia]

9. I can't believe I am saying this, but I think I am glad Sotmyer was NOT making this decision.

[Ms. Toad]

11. It wouldn't have made a difference.

There is more legal foundation to support the birth control question than this one.

Just because a justice is Catholic doesn't mean she sided with a challenge brought to the law by a Catholic organization - and anything I've seen indicates the decision to issue a very temporary stay was based on legal reasoning rather than faith. I don't agree with the position the Catholic organization has taken - but legally it could go either way.

[lostincalifornia]

13. I thought the birth control exception was answered, by filing the appropriate paper work, so why

this needs to be rehashed again I am not sure I understand

I wasn't even referring to the religion of the justice as an issue

[Ms. Toad]

19. Many Catholic organizations (but not all)

agreed that it was acceptable compromise to allow insurance companies to pick up the cost of birth control for their employees, without charging it back to the Catholic organization.

Some did not agree to it - and the compromise was never legally tested (that is the job of the court). Those entities still have a legal right to challenge the compromise as imposing on their First Amendment rights regarding the free exercise of religion or as violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (enacted to counter the Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, which found that a generally applicable criminal statute - not specifically directed at a particular religion could, in some circumstances, restrain the free exercise of religion - in this case ceremonial peyote use by a member of a Native American Nation. The case has pretty broad application - prohibitions on alcohol consumption by minors for example could halt communion for minors in churches which use wine for communion; individuals who base their conscientious objection to war on their faith (e.g. Quakers & members of other peace churches) could be forced to participate in the armed services in the event of another draft, etc.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was designed to fix what was seen as a major hit to the free exercise clauses and decreed that: "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability (e.g. the Affordable Care Act), except if...the...Government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person -- is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest (e.g. ensuring access to affordable and comprehensive health care); and is the least restrictive (e.g. the government could not have devised any other means which imposed less on the rights of the Catholic organizations) means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

It will be the last clause that is at issue - could the government have devised a different plan which addressed the compelling interest without imposing on the right of members of the Catholic Church to freely exercise their religious beliefs which tell them that it is a sin to participate (even indirectly) in providing birth control. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has some holes in it based on an earlier decision finding parts of it unconstitutional - so there is still some testing of exactly how much of it is constitutional, and because of the compromise on the ACA and this particular issue not being ripe until 1/1/2014 (when the mandatory coverage by employers took effect), the compromise has not been tested either.

[lostincalifornia]

20. Does religious liberty extend to the right to not have to fill out paperwork?

[Ms. Toad]

22. It isn't filling out paperwork that is the issue -

it is providing health insurance which either directly, or indirectly provides birth control.

Absent the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it would have been a pretty easy case (against the Catholic organization) under the Smith case. With the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (particularly with a constitutional cloud over the Act) it isn't clear to me - without spending a lot more time with Con Law than I have in 15 years (after Smith and before the RFRA) which way it will go. A brief period for the parties to brief the matter in order for the Court to consider which side is likely to prevail on the merits (part of the test for a longer stay) in this legally complex case was appropriate - from a legal perspective. (As was the decision by Roberts to deny a similar request on a question which, on its face, was much less likely to succeed.

[Deep13]

10. res judicata

the court has already ruled on the constitutionality of the law.

[jaysunb]

14. +1 n/t

[Xipe Totec]

18. Spanish translation: Te Jodiste. nt

In English: Now you're fucked.

[last1standing]

16. This is a very good sign.

If Roberts is refusing to even listen to arguments like this, it likely means that he will be very skeptical in cases like Little Sisters and Hobby Lobby.

[DhhD]

17. A Philosophy of Quackery and a Practice of Prejudice.

[another_liberal]

24. "Challenged by a group of Nuns?"

Oh well, as long as the sisters don't get directly involved in politics or anything like that . . .

We are still doing the Separation of Church and State thing, right?

[Warren Stupidity]

25. a "group of nuns" challenging a law is not a violation of the establishment clause.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. But it would be should SCOTUS rule in their favor, no?

Since SCOTUS rules on whether a law is constitutional or not, and the nuns are challenging that part of the PPACA based on religous grounds, and should SCOTUS rule in that group's favor, wouldn't that be blurring the separation of church and state clause?

[former9thward]

30. No.

If a section of the ACA is unconstitutional due to religious freedom then that section will not have be implemented by those organizations. No blur there.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. Looks like a blur to me.

But then again, I'm not a constitutional attorney.

That said, the challenge is based on that group of nun's religious freedom and Hobby Lobby's fake claim of religious freedom (in their attempt to make corporations more human - with all the rights but zero responsibilities) that they claim is being infringed upon by a government law. That looks a lot like their attempt to blur the line of separation of church and state to me.

That said, they apparently forgot that exceptions for true religious institutions have already been made, so I don't see why this court challenge is even taken seriously.

[former9thward]

35. Their argument is the exception for religious bodies does not really work.

Because insurance companies are still required to have the birth control in their policies which the religious bodies pay for. You seem to have the view that religious bodies are not allowed to participate in government or politics. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says that. A priest or nun, for example, can be elected to public office and there is no violation.

[BlueCaliDem]

36. Their argument is based on the perceived infringement by Gov't of their religious freedom.

That's what I'm taking away from this. So no, I don't have the view that religious bodies are not allowed to participate in government or politics. I have the view that religious bodies shouldn't dictate Federal laws to conform to their chosen religion.

As a novice looking in from the outside, that's exactly what it looks like; their attempt to impose their religious beliefs on government policy.

A priest or nun, for example, can be elected to public office and there is no violation.

You're correct, unless, of course they try to rewrite Federal law to coincide with their chosen dogma that isn't shared by the rest of the populace.

If this should stand, what will be the next group of religious people who'll try to capitalize on changing gov't policy based on their faith?

How about Jehovah's Witnesses? They can challenge the PPACA to exclude all blood transfusions in all insurance policies.

Or how about Mormons, who might demand that the PPACA exclude all people who drink coffee, tea, and caffeinated sodas?

Or how about Jewish and Muslim faithfuls, who can demand that the PPACA only have policies that deny any treatment of illnesses resulting from eating pork?

Or people who practice the Hindu faith who might challenge the law in order to have it exclude treatment of people who eat beef since they worship cows?

This is a slippery slope and it has the appearance of blurring the line between separation of church and state to me.

[former9thward]

37. I think you are confusing something here.

The Nuns are not trying to get birth control provisions struck from everyone's policies. Just their own. In your examples you used the terms "all insurances policies" and "all people." No one is trying to do that.

[BlueCaliDem]

43. Then why launch a court challenge, if that's not the case?

Why not simply ask an insurance company to exclude birth control from their policies?

I don't believe their lawsuit is as innocent or as religiously noble as you'd like to believe.

[former9thward]

50. The ACA requires birth control in the policies.

No one can "ask" an insurance company to violate the law. That is the basis of the lawsuit. In none of my posts was I claiming the lawsuit was "innocent" or "religiously noble". I was simply trying to explain the basis for the suit, not that I agreed with it.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. This lawsuit is frivolous. The rightwing group of nuns are against filling out the paperwork

Last edited Wed Jan 8, 2014, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

necessary to get an already existing exemption of the ACA's contraceptive mandate. No lawsuit required. So their motives are impure and frivolous.

The ACA has a series of outs for religious employers who say medication like contraception violates their moral beliefs. It's essentially three-tied: for-profit organizations have to cover contraception in their health plans; explicitly religious organizations like churches don't have to provide contraception if they believe birth control is morally wrong; and religiously-affiliated non-profits that are neither owned nor controlled by religious groups do not have to provide contraception either, but they have to fill out a form certifying that they are religiously-affiliated, and then a third party administrator makes sure that employees can get contraception if they need it. The third-party administrator, and not the employer, pays for contraception coverage.

In the case that led Sotomayor to issue the injunction, an organization called the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged objected to the ACA's contraception requirement. All the Little Sisters have to do is fill out a form and the organization will be under no obligation to pay for birth control for its many employees – which include home health aides, nurses, administrators and a variety of women who may not be Catholic or, like 98% of sexually active Catholic women, may choose to use a birth control method other than natural family planning – but apparently a form is too great an intrusion on their religious liberty.

*snip*

The Becket Fund, a conservative organization representing the Little Sisters, claims (pdf) that the ACA restricts the religious freedom of the Sisters because the Sisters rely on a Catholic insurance company, the Christian Brothers Trust, for their company health insurance. The Christian Brothers Trust doesn't provide coverage for hormonal birth control, IUDs or sterilization.

*snip*

Their claim that even this accommodation violates their religious liberty is telling. These ACA-related "religious liberty" arguments aren't actually about the freedom to exercise your own religion, or the right to be free of doing something that violates your conscience. These assertions are about an overwhelming sense of entitlement on behalf of religious organizations to force anyone within their reach to adhere to their beliefs
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/obamacare-contraception-lawsuit-religious-freedom

Thus, the "Little Sisters of the Poor Home For the Aged" are a tool for Conservatives who are trying to chip away at the PPACA and are continuing to try to blur (or erase) the line between separation *of Church and State, just as I've argued. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[another_liberal]

44. It should be . . .

They are part of a political movement with the intent to bring about a legal reality which comports with their narrow-minded, superstitious teachings. Yet they also expect the privileges and protections from their status as members of a religious order remain intact.

I see all kinds of conflict with the establishment clause.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. You have the establishment clause completely backwards.

Barring nuns from participating in a lawsuit would be a violation of the establishment clause.

[another_liberal]

47. I didn't say they should be barred . . .

They should be ignored as the self-deluding twits they clearly are. It is none of their concern if other women take birth control pills, or if the rest of the country wants the cost of those pills covered by group insurance plans. The Nuns are not paying for anything, and neither is their backward church. They are just demanding the rest of us behave in concert with their benighted, anti-woman movement.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. huh? "They should be ignored as the self-deluding twits they clearly are"

how can I interpret that as anything other than you think nuns should have no standing in court, that the courts should ignore them, unlike other persons, because of their religious status?

[another_liberal]

54. The Supreme Court should refuse to hear their case.

Their belief in religious nonsense has little to do with it. They have suffered no harm or loss, they have no standing to bring the case.

[Arkana]

27. That was their justification?

It's not even a FACTUAL justification! Laws can originate in either chamber as long as both houses pass them!

Jesus fucking Christ, at least couch it in some bullshit "STATES RIGHTS!" crap so that your real meaning is obfuscated. Next you'll be upset that the bill was written in the wrong font.

[ET Awful]

38. Strictly speaking, revenue raising bills are supposed to originate in the House.

Since this is not, strictly speaking, a revenue raising bill, that argument becomes moot.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution reads: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

[Sgent]

59. Parts of the bill

were revenue raising however. There is a tax on medical devices, suntanning services, and others.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. It seems that Roberts is saying ...

"Stop it! Just stop! It's the law."

[HoosierCowboy]

33. A Tale of Two Nations

In France:
Doctors without Borders
In the USA:
Doctors without Conscience

[Fantastic Anarchist]

41. ^^^This!^^^

[msanthrope]

39. Fuck Ron Paul! nt

[unblock]

52. just to be clear, this suit was completely meritless. the "senate version" originated in the house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working on the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Instead, the Senate took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[89] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[90] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their healthcare reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[91]