Judge mocks Obama’s ‘accommodation’ proposal on contraception mandate

Posted by on Dec 09, 2012 at 9:04 pm

Judge Brian Cogan mocked the “accommodation” on religion liberty outlined by President Obama in regards to his health care law’s contraception mandate while ruling against a Justice Department motion to dismiss the Archdiocese of New York’s lawsuit against the regulation.

“There is no, ‘Trust us, changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution,” Cogan wrote in his ruling against DOJ. “To the contrary, the Bill of Rights itself, and the First Amendment in particular, reflect a degree of skepticism towards governmental self-restraint and self-correction.”

Cogan was referring Obama’s promise to accommodate the concerns of religiously-affiliated institutions that would have to provide free contraception.

“Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work,” Obama said in February 2011.  “So that core principle remains.  But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”

Full story.

2 Responses to “Judge mocks Obama’s ‘accommodation’ proposal on contraception mandate”

  1. dissent is verboten on 10/10/12 at 4:02 am

    Who does this judge think he is? He has to be a racist to question or criticize anything from his imperial majesty Hussein the anointed one.

  2. MT Geoff on 12/12/12 at 1:56 pm

    Let me start by saying that I’m not a Roman Catholic and that I am perfectly happy if families or individuals choose to use contraceptives. I’m much more squeamish about abortion.
    That said, the federal government has no business determining what services are and are not necessary for an insurance policy, nor requiring that any employer — religious or otherwise — provide healthcare insurance as part of its compensation package, nor requiring that individual purchase a policy which covers procedures that are anathema to the individual.
    The terms of compensation, including the availability of healthcare insurance and what it may cover, are private contract matters between employers and employees.
    The only governmental roles in healthcare insurance should be to monitor providers for fiscal soundness and for complying with the terms of their policies.