The Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, Obamacare, the Abortion Mandate, Religious Freedom, and the Constitution of the United States

I posted a questionnaire I sent to the two mayoral candidates for the Village of Morton and the answers given by one of the candidates—Stephen Newhouse. The questions and answers are posted at:


http://christiangunslinger7.blogspot.com.

If the other candidate responses I will also post his answers. At the present, he has not.

—

Petition

http://www.traditionalvalues.us/HC_Petition1.aspx?pid=218a&gclid=CNfr3oOywLUCFYZcMgodaRAAug

—

Petition to the Boy Scouts of American for their May meeting to stand firm on their moral obligation to the boys of the Boy Scouts and to GOD’s HOLY WORD!

http://www.libertyaction.org/376/petition.asp?Ref_ID=19537&CID=376&RID=37939428

—

Gun petition from a gun manufacturer

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_787655_-1_757992_757992_image

—

Watch this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOh78XZ0Jrk&list=UUK0zFZzBPgAPF8jxSagYg7w

—

Watch this video! The logic of the Left!

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/this-is-how-the-left-thinks-gun-control-actually-works/

—

A Petition

http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/SignPetition.asp?id=2010

—

Petition: Audit the Federal Reserve

http://www.randpacusa.com/atf.aspx?pid=0219b

—

Set American Oil Free Petition

http://www.grassfire.com/229/petition.asp?Ref_ID=19595&RID=38397224

—

Petition: No Amnesty for Illegal Aliens!

http://pages.townhall.com/campaign/amnesty/rc/GA

—

A new segment: The fraud of the day. President Obama claims that the federal government can’t afford to cut any spending even though we are borrowing 40% of every dollar spent. And even though fraud is RAMPANT throughout the federal government! When the government is spending trillions of dollars the opportunity for fraud is everywhere! Therefore:

Fraud of the day website: www.fraudoftheday.com

The fraud article of the day (February 26, 2013. I was able to post yesterday):

http://www.fraudoftheday.com/2013/02/26/miami-is-bringing-the-heat/

Support the Second Amendment Petition

http://www.supportsecondamendment.com/

—

Petition to Continue the Revolution Against Establishment Republicans

http://www.chooseliberty.org/continue3.aspx?pid=sab1

—
From: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-federal-judge-we-can-force-your-wife-violate-her-religion

“DOJ (Department of Justice [AKA Department of Injustice]—my addition) to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion

February 25, 2013
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - While presenting an oral argument in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last fall, a lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department told a federal judge that the Obama administration believed it could force the judge’s own wife—a physician—to act against her religious faith in the conduct of her medical practice.

The assertion came in the case of Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, a challenge to the Obama administration’s regulation requiring health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

Tyndale is a for-profit corporation that publishes Bibles, biblical commentaries and other religious works. Tyndale House Foundation, a religious non-profit organization, owns 96.5 percent of the corporation’s stock and receives 96.5 percent of its profits. The foundation’s mission is ‘to minister to the spiritual needs of people, primarily through grants to other religious charities.’

As a matter of religious principle, the foundation believes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong.

The corporation self-insures, providing its employees with a generous health-care plan. But, in keeping with its religious faith, it does not in any way provide abortions. For this reason, Tyndale sued the Obama administration, arguing that the Obamacare regulation that would force it to provide abortion-inducing drugs and IUDs in its health-care plan violated its right to the free-exercise of religion (The law violates the religious rights of ANYONE who believes that abortion is MURDER! No one with such a belief should be required to help finance such a law through federal government taxes and/or through insurance that that person purchases!—my addition).

‘Consistent with the religious beliefs of Tyndale and its owners, Tyndale’s self-insured plan does not and has never covered abortions or abortifacient drugs or devices such as emergency contraception and intrauterine devices,’ Tyndale said in its legal complaint,

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/TyndaleComplaint.pdf

prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

When Tyndale sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the administration from enforcing the regulation on the company before the federal courts could determine the issue on its merits, Benjamin Berwick, a lawyer for the Civil Division of the Justice Department presented the administration's argument for why Tyndale should be forced to act against the religious faith of its owners. The oral argument over the preliminary injunction occurred Nov. 9 in Judge Walton’s court.

Berwick argued here—as the administration has argued in other cases where private businesses are challenging the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate—that once people form a corporation to conduct business they lose their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion insofar as their business is concerned (That is both nonsense and is nowhere within the Constitution of the United States! One does NOT surrender religious freedom when one conducts business or ANY other aspect of his life. Religious freedom is NOT compartmentalized! It is not compartmentalized in the Constitution nor in one’s life! If it were, then one could commit MURDER as a business enterprise and not be violating one’s own conscience. Try telling that to GOD! What nonsense!—my addition).

In the face of this argument, Judge Walton asked an interesting question. His wife, a graduate of Georgetown Medical School, is a physician. She has incorporated her medical practice. Does that mean, according to the Obama administration’s argument, that the federal government can force her to act against her religious faith in the conduct of her medical practice?

Berwick effectively answered: Yes.

Here, from the official court transcript,

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/TyndaleTranscript.pdf

is the verbatim exchange between this Obama administration lawyer and Judge Walton:

Benjamin Berwick: ‘Well, your honor, I think, I think there are two distinct ideas here: One is: Is the corporation itself religious such that it can exercise religion? And my, our argument is that it is not. Although again, we admit that it is a closer case than for a lot of other companies. And then the second question is, can the owners—is it a substantial burden on the owners when the requirement falls on the company that is a separate legal entity? I think for that question precisely what their beliefs are doesn’t really matter. I mean, they allege that they’re religious beliefs are being violated. We don’t question that. And we don’t question that that is the belief.’

Judge Reggie Walton: ‘But considering the closeness of the relationship that the individual owners have to the corporation to require them to fund what they believe amounts to the taking of a life, I don’t know what could be more contrary to one’s religious belief than that.’

Berwick: ‘Well, I don’t think the fact this is a closely-held corporation is particularly relevant, your honor. I mean, Mars, for example—’

Judge Walton: ‘Well, I mean, my wife has a medical practice. She has a corporation, but she’s the sole owner and sole stock owner. If she had strongly-held religious belief and she made that known that she operated her medical practice from that perspective, could she be required to pay for these types of items if she felt that that was causing her to violate her religious beliefs?’

Berwick: ‘Well, Your Honor, I think what it comes down to is whether there is a legal separation between the company and—’

Judge Walton: ‘It’s a legal separation. I mean, she obviously has created the corporation to limit her potential individual liability, but she’s the sole owner and everybody associates that medical practice with her as an individual. And if, you know, she was very active in her church and her church had these same type of strong religious-held beliefs, and members of the church and the community became aware of the fact that she is funding something that is totally contrary to what she professes as her belief, why should she have to do that?’

Berwick: ‘Well, your honor, again, I think it comes down to the fact that the corporation and the owner truly are separate. They are separate legal entities.’

Judge Walton: ‘So, she’d have to give up the limitation that conceivably would befall on her regarding liability in order to exercise her religion? So, she’d have to go as an individual proprietor with no corporation protection in order to assert her religious right? Isn’t that as significant burden?’

On Nov. 16, Judge Walton granted Tyndale a preliminary injunction

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/TyndalePIopinion.pdf

preventing the Obama administration from forcing the corporation to violate the religious beliefs of its owners.

In a series of interviews

http://www.dcchs.org/ReggieBWalton/reggiebwalton_complete.pdf

conducted in 2007 by the Historical Society of the District of Columbia, Judge Walton reported that his wife was a doctor of medicine who had attended Georgetown Medical School.”

The First Amendment to the united States Constitution:

“Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The relevant portion of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

This Amendment does NOT make exceptions for operating a business or any other legal human activity. It is all inclusive. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW! What part of NO does the Obama Administration NOT understand?

If passing a law that requires a person to finance a practice that is immoral according to his religious beliefs—which are beliefs that have long been established by many different recognized religions—is not an attempt to prohibit the free exercise of those religions then this Constitutional provision has NO meaning! This is yet another example of the lawlessness of the Obama Administration!