[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Judge Rejects Liberty University's Health Care Reform Challenge A federal judge in Virginia threw out a case brought by Liberty University that claimed the health care reform law is unconstitutional and would allow the religious institution’s insurance payments to cover abortions. The White House quickly trumpeted the suit’s dismissal as a sign that the health care law will survive the many legal challenges it faces. “The judge’s ruling today only underscores the importance of the law’s individual responsibility provision,” Stephanie Cutter, assistant for special projects, wrote in a White House blog post Tuesday. Liberty University, a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., had argued that the legislation’s requirement that nearly all Americans purchase insurance coverage and its incentives for large employers to cover employees would allow the university’s money to cover abortions, violating the religious values of the institution. The court flatly rejected that argument. “The Act explicitly states that no plan is required to cover any form of abortion services,” Judge Norman K. Moon, of the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Virginia, wrote in his order Monday. Moon was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton and confirmed in 1997. Abortion became one of the lynchpin issues during the health care reform debate. A group of pro-life House Democrats threatened to oppose the law, a threat appeased when President Obama signed an executive order stating that no federal funds would cover abortions. Liberty – and five individuals who joined the suit — also argued that the employer and individual coverage requirements are beyond Congress’s powers and violate the First, Fifth and Tenth amendments. The suit claimed that the law is an illegal direct tax, violates the Constitution’s promise of a republic form of government and violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The university argued that it would face significant fines – of about $1.1 million— if the employer requirements are kept in place. The legislation requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance coverage to workers or face additional taxes. The federal government countered that the university didn’t have a right to file the suit and that the issues aren’t ripe for trial. The White House took the dismissal as a chance to reiterate the rationale of the new law:. “In order to make health care affordable and available for all,” Cutter wrote, “the Act regulates how to pay for medical services – services that account for more than 17.5 percent of the national economy. This law came into being precisely because of the interconnectedness of our health care costs.” The suit is one of many filed against the health care reform law, and courts around the country have been split over whether to allow the challenges to proceed. A judge in the Eastern District of Virginia heard oral arguments in Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s challenge to the health care law in October and is expected to rule by the end of the year. Oral arguments in the most high-profile case, a suit backed by 20 states, are scheduled for December 16 in Pensacola, Fla. The case is widely expected to end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|