A full court press

Spate of lawsuits typifies divisive Obama administration

  • Follow Editorials

If lawsuits created jobs, this president would be setting records for job growth instead of unemployment.

Can you remember a presidential administration that initiated or inspired more major lawsuits?

Under this president’s leadership, states have been sued for trying to bring credibility to their voting rolls and for trying to get a handle on the out-of-control illegal immigration problem.

Some 26 states are suing the federal government over the president’s health care reform law – a backlash that history books may look back on as nothing short of a rebellion.

Now the administration has inspired the filing of lawsuits by 43 religious institutions over the health care law’s mandated insurance coverage for contraception and the morning-after abortion pill.

(As an aside, how Orwellian is this? That a government would try to force religious institutions to provide services they find abhorrent – and then the claim is made that there’s a war on women? It’s the exact opposite of the truth.)

Twelve new lawsuits by 43 Catholic institutions have brought the number of legal actions against Obamacare’s contraception mandate alone to 23.

If a president wanted to tie the nation up in legal knots, he or she couldn’t do any better than this.

It’s amazing, and alarming, that anyone in this country still has to go to the courts to force the government to observe our basic constitutional rights. It’s astounding that the federal government thinks it can force us to buy health insurance, or any other product. It’s horrifying that anyone in government thinks it can nullify the First Amendment and force Americans to violate their religious convictions in such a fundamental and grotesque way.

What part of this doesn’t the Obama administration understand? Catholics, as well as others, believe contraception kills.

As for those who don’t believe that, you, too, should be alarmed: Once they go after one person’s religious belief, no one’s is
sacred.

“The (latest) lawsuits have been filed in eight states and the District of Columbia,” writes the Associated Press, “by the Archdioceses of Washington and New York, the Michigan Catholic Conference, Catholic Charities in Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri and Indiana, health care agencies in New York and two dioceses in Texas.”

“Religious freedom, protected in the U.S. Constitution and other laws and statutes, is rooted in the dignity of every human person,” Catholic Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades said in a moving and eloquent statement. “It is inherent in our humanity, a God-given right. It is a cornerstone of basic human rights and is necessary for the flourishing of society. We are obliged to defend it for ourselves and for others. We are asking in this lawsuit that this right be respected by our government.”

This, and all the other legal contretemps this administration has inspired, is exceedingly sad for a couple of reasons.

First, it ties up innumerable resources that could be used to create jobs and get the economy going again.

Second, the administration’s repeatedly bizarre misreading of the Constitution and of states’ and individual rights gives folks the wrong impression about the condition of their freedoms. If you were to take this administration’s view of the Constitution as gospel, this would be a very different country indeed – one with far fewer liberties.

It’s too bad we have to go to court to fight for what is already ours. But thank God we can.

Comments (26) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 05/26/12 - 05:41 am
8
0
The sad part is it cost so

The sad part is it cost so much to fight your way through the legal system to get to the Surpreme Court and a decision against an unconstitutional law. While I applaud the states and churches for standing up, I can't help but wonder how many laws would be ruled unconstitutional if they they were only challenged effectively.

southernguy08
499
Points
southernguy08 05/26/12 - 07:56 am
0
0
BARACK AND MEXICAN PRESIDENT
Unpublished

Never thought I'd see a sitting American president side with a foreign leader to criticize an American state. But, we sure have seen this, with Barack, the president of Mexico, and Arizona regarding their state illegal alien policy. If Obama will do this to an American state, doesn't this prove his contempt for America? Does he really deserve another term in office?

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 05/26/12 - 08:04 am
6
1
Separation of church and

Separation of church and state is allowed as long as the state can force the church to obey its rules. That is how the current admin. defines the concept.

freeradical
1102
Points
freeradical 05/26/12 - 08:07 am
4
1
And this all while he feels

And this all while he feels restricted.

Just imagine what could be in store if 4 more years made him he feel

he had :

" much more flexibility " ?

I will transmit this to Vladimir .

JohnBrownAug
1962
Points
JohnBrownAug 05/26/12 - 08:30 am
0
2
These Fringe Lawsuits...

These fringe lawsuits by the states and Catholic Church are clearly racist fueled. Just like that teacher in NC said, it's not right to criticize Obama because he is president.

Rhetor
1026
Points
Rhetor 05/26/12 - 10:09 am
2
3
Ah, yes, the government is

Ah, yes, the government is suing Southern states over voting rights issues. This is news? Will the South ever get over the fact that they lost the Civil War? Why can't white conservatives just admit that poor people have a right to vote?

faithson
5276
Points
faithson 05/26/12 - 10:27 am
2
1
who's filing these suits

You take government money, you play by THEIR rules. remember well the discussions about taking the government run lunch program at one of our local parochial schools. You take the dollars, you play by their rules, pretty simple even if your a hospital, a community outreach center or any of a myriad of services... gotta love those who want their cake and eat it too !

desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 05/26/12 - 10:50 am
2
0
Play by the rules bounded by

Play by the rules bounded by the Constitution means there are limits to the authority of the federal government. For the most part, states and other organizations will play by the rules. When the rules/regulations overstep authority of either the law or Constitution and the government will not willingly back off, legal action is a viable option.

JohnBrownAug
1962
Points
JohnBrownAug 05/26/12 - 11:16 am
2
2
Rhetor Makes a Good Point

I had forgotten we lost the Civil War 147 years ago and have no right to enforce laws. We should just do what President Obama says and shut up about it. We lost the Civil War.

harley_52
24029
Points
harley_52 05/26/12 - 12:07 pm
2
1
Rhetor asks the question "Why

Rhetor asks the question "Why can't white conservatives just admit that poor people have a right to vote?"

Such a brilliant question. Everybody knows no white conservatives are "poor." And everybody knows the non-white poor are being refused voting rights simply because they're "poor."

Rhetor is about to provide the evidence he's used to draw such a conclusion.

Hold your breath.....

KSL
135589
Points
KSL 05/26/12 - 12:30 pm
2
2
Can liberals not see the

Can liberals not see the differernce in trying to prevent voter fraud and trying "to keep poor people from voting"? Amazing!

faithson
5276
Points
faithson 05/26/12 - 12:47 pm
2
3
voter fraud is a red herring

the facts on the ground do NOT bear out a need for voter id laws. Drink the kool-aid if you must, but please know that voter id laws are a political effort to suppress the democratic vote, PERIOD. reminds me of justification for separate but equal, didn't have a leg to stand on but it 'felt' good......

allhans
24147
Points
allhans 05/26/12 - 12:52 pm
2
1
I don't blame liberals for

I don't blame liberals for protesting the voter ID, they have had it their way for years.
Times are changing. With the influx of immigrants the government has to keep tabs in some way.
Now, if these whiners never show an ID for anything, then I can see their point. I don't know how they get by if they are off the rolls, but maybe THEY do.

harley_52
24029
Points
harley_52 05/26/12 - 01:23 pm
2
1
faithson....I don't think

faithson....I don't think you'll get much argument to your comment that "....but please know that voter id laws are a political effort to suppress the democratic vote, PERIOD."

As long as we can all agree that the "democratic vote" has traditionally included large numbers of dead people, people who have moved, convicted felons serving time, and multiple voters using the same name then I certainly agree voter ID laws are aimed at "democratic voters."

And well they should be.

specsta
6631
Points
specsta 05/26/12 - 02:35 pm
4
3
The Chronicle wrote: "It’s

The Chronicle wrote: "It’s horrifying that anyone in government thinks it can nullify the First Amendment and force Americans to violate their religious convictions in such a fundamental and grotesque way."

It's horrifying how those of us against wars and coddling the rich see our tax dollars go to build the latest flesh-mutilating weapon and into the pockets of millionaire CEOs. That's the real atrocity which violates my religious convictions, not some issue about health care, which HELPS people, or contraception, which PREVENTS unwanted pregnancies.

KSL
135589
Points
KSL 05/26/12 - 04:00 pm
4
1
The difference in me and you

The difference in me and you specsta is that I believe in personal responsibilty. It was my place to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, not the governments.

desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 05/26/12 - 06:42 pm
4
2
Specta, Its almost not worth

Specta, Its almost not worth the effort so I'll keep it short. No law regarding religion and free exercise thereof means no law, but you are free to exercise. It doesn't mean the government makes laws that conform to your individual beliefs and imposes them on everyone else. Also, the Constitution empowers Congress to provide for the common defense, provide a standing navy, and to raise and support the army of our nation.

specsta
6631
Points
specsta 05/26/12 - 07:27 pm
2
1
Desertcat, I'm not sure if

Desertcat, I'm not sure if the Founding Fathers envisioned the use of munitions like nukes, mustard gas and cluster bombs on human beings when they empowered Congress to provide defense for the nation. It surely takes an evil mind to devise a weapon (like a cluster bomb) that usually winds up as unexploded ordnance and is picked up by children, thinking it is a toy, and shreds their limbs. Ask a few limbless Iraqi children their opinion about this.

If you don't have a problem with money being spent on horrid devices such as cluster bombs, that is a serious problem. And the US intends to keep on using this weapon, refusing to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions treaty, despite the fact that over 111 other countries have done so at the present time. This treaty was created in 2008 and went into effect in 2010.

The fact is, the US government can spend billions of taxpayer dollars to chop folks up like hamburger meat, which I vehemently oppose, and I have no say at all in the matter.

desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 05/26/12 - 08:30 pm
1
0
Specta, I was simply pointing

Specta, I was simply pointing out the flaw in your logic regarding the Constitution. If I gave you the numbers regarding the number of children injured in AQI attacks and unattended IEDs vice those that resulted from US firefights or duds in our AO in Iraq, you would probably blame them all on the US for being there.

KSL
135589
Points
KSL 05/26/12 - 09:44 pm
0
0
We won't even discuss the

We won't even discuss the slaughter of people where the US has no military presence.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 05/26/12 - 09:55 pm
2
0
Why would I want to prohibit

Why would I want to prohibit anyone the right to vote -- especially regarding a war that ended almost 150 years ago?

What a ridiculous comment!

However, I do not believe anyone should vote twice. And, that only genuine, legal citizens should vote. I have no problem with insuring that these 2 conditions are verified with a photo ID or other certification. That infringes upon no one's rights, and makes sure the system is working properly.

KSL
135589
Points
KSL 05/26/12 - 10:04 pm
1
0
Every person in the US who is

Every person in the US who is eligible to vote should have the right to cast one ballot in their legal precinct. Have no problem with despite the fact that illiterates are thus allowed to influence elections.
Why the objection to trying to prevent voter fraud even it is not as wide spread as many of us feel it has the potential to be?

Mommyforlife
2
Points
Mommyforlife 05/26/12 - 10:44 pm
0
1
I think the point everyone is

I think the point everyone is missing is this. There are certain things when it comes to our governmdnt I have absolutely no control over especially in regards to war and defense. What war they fight, who they send, our foreign policies, etc. However, when it comes to here at home, there is a lot I can do. I can pray in front of planned parenthood, sign petitions, vote, email my senator, , encourage young women to respect themselves and the gift of life, educate about the evils of murdering babies before they are born, and so much more. And maybe if we could get more people like me to voice our anger and outrage against the evil of Turing a fetus into hamburger meat ( they crush their skulls and dismember their bodies Alive!) maybe just maybe we can turn this country into a culture of life instead of a culture of death where we respect lives and its fragility then maybe it will wake up our administration, conngress, and our President so they'll think twice about starting wars!!!! When you allow the innocent babies to be willingly murdered by their own parents you think our President is going to cry for the men we send to war?!?! Think about it!!
You want wars to end and soldiers and innocent to die? Who is more innocent then an unborn baby??? Tell me!! The reason we war is because there is a war here to fight for truth and life! And the only people who care about life IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!! It's like a domino affect! Once you start murdering babies before they are born, your heart goes numb to everything else. Trust me, I know... Mommy for Life!

KSL
135589
Points
KSL 05/26/12 - 10:51 pm
0
0
You have the right not to

You have the right not to have that procedure performed. Do Chinese women?

KSL
135589
Points
KSL 05/26/12 - 10:56 pm
0
0
I think you need to edit your

I think you need to edit your post. Check your last few sentences. Are you saying you experinced heart numbness?

specsta
6631
Points
specsta 05/26/12 - 10:58 pm
0
0
MommyForLife

I would like to know your opinion about this:

Numbers 5:11-31 (NIV)

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse —“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it. ”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

This seems to be clear instructions from God for an abortion on an unfaithful wife.

KSL
135589
Points
KSL 05/26/12 - 11:04 pm
0
2
I dislike cherry picking from

I dislike cherry picking from the Bible or any other religious source.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs