Re. PLUS HHS social agenda -govt brief-op ed

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

You've probably heard that a Federal Judge issued a temporary injunction in

favor of Hercules Industries.

This story came out before the judge's decision.

(http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=47086 Dept. of Justice to

Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business

By Terence P. 7/27/2012 CNSNews at www.cnsnews.com) Within it was

an official governmental defense of the mandate. PLEASE READ THE LEGAL DOCUMENT.

http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/NEWLAND%20V%20SEBELIUS-DOJ%20RE\

SPONSE.pdf

Early Friday I sent both links in an email to the Washington Post asking if

they would consider an oped piece on it and they said yes. However, being

neither a lawyer or a doctor I don't feel qualified to write one. Maybe one of

you out there is BOTH. (Anyway I think the legal document is well worth reading

or having your phone or tablet read it to you if you have text-to-speech. I did

that while working in my classroom.)

Please do read the samples below. If you want more I will pick them out for

you.

praying,

Jean

Just samples- this is the government arguing against Hercules:

[ the regulations ] " ... are narrowly tailored to serve two compelling

governmental interests: improving the health of women and children, and

equalizing the provision of preventive care for women

and men so that women who choose to do so can be a part of the workforce on an

equal

playing field with men. "

" Moreover, it has been estimated to cost employers 15 to

17 percent more to not provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans than

to

provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of

pregnancy

and indirect costs such as employee absence and the reduced productivity

associated with

such absence. Sonfield, supra, at 10. "

" Id. at 103. In fact, “pregnancy may be

contraindicated for women with serious medical conditions such as pulmonary

hypertension . . . and cyanotic heart disease, and for women with the Marfan

Syndrome.â€

Id. at 103-04. Accordingly, through the requirement that health coverage include

coverage for contraceptive services without cost-sharing, defendants seek to

further an

indisputably compelling interest in the promotion of women’s health and the

health of

potential newborn children.

Closely tied to this interest is a related, but separate, compelling interest

that is

furthered by the preventive services coverage regulations. As the Supreme Court

explained in v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 626, there is a

fundamental

“importance, both to the individual and to society, of removing the barriers

to economic

advancement and political and social integration that have historically plagued

certain

disadvantaged groups, including women.†Thus, “[a]ssuring women equal access

to . . .

goods, privileges, and advantages clearly furthers compelling state

interests.â€

===========================================

, My understanding is that Planned Parenthood derives its income from

" free choice " people and abortion supporters. They are not open to the life of

others, children, only their own as ironic and suicidal as that seems. Their

definition of marriage as well iscontrary to nature and natural law, a disorder

which has affected the thinking of too many for which society will suffer

greatly if not now than later.  Our declining birth rate will strain, if not

destroy, the dependence of generations of people to come. Many industrialized

nations' populations are now diminishing so rapidly that they are destroying

their future economies without understanding God's willworking its way through

nature, his law, too.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Bame wrote: