Attorney General Jackley Joins Challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate

38 thoughts on “Attorney General Jackley Joins Challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate”

1. The gov’t should not consider any religion when it comes to legislation meant to help all citizens. Your beliefs are just that, your own. Not mine. Not the guy next to me. Not the guy down the street. Frankly, there shouldn’t be such a thing as religious non-profits. Anything religion related should pay taxes and quit being moochers. You guys are just as bad as islam extremists who try to get exemptions for their BS beliefs.

   1. So there should be no freedom of religion? Just because someone else may believe that killing of unborn babies is A-Okay doesn’t mean that other people should be forced to support it.

      Comparing other religions to Islamic extremists shows what a pathetic little man you are and how low you will stoop to convey your hatred of morality and goodness. I think that we should all feel sorry for such a person as you and realize you maybe weren’t raised right.

      1. What do I care what some coward thinks of me? I can’t help but laugh when someone calls me a little man and they don’t even have the guts to sign their name. What a good little christian you are. Jesus would be so proud of you.

         1. Incline, O Lord, Your ear to my prayer, in which I humbly beseech Your mercy, that You would place the soul of Your child, Dan, which You have allowed to harden, into the region of peace and light; and unite in the fellowship of Your Saints. Through Christ our Lord.

            1. Thanks Judas.

   2. When you say “there shouldn’t be such a thing as religious non-profits. Anything religion related should pay taxes and quit being moochers,” are you directing that towards non-profit hospitals as well?

      1. Any hospital that tries to hide behind a religious belief system to avoid treating their employees the same as what any other employer would have to do….yes. Employees should have the exact same expectations of their employers regardless of who that is or what their belief system is.

         1. So, when you work with Avera and other religious non-profit hospitals when you sell them software, do you tell them they shouldn’t exist before or after you take their dirty religious non-profit money?

            http://www.intuviosolutions.com/Applications.aspx

            Because it sounds like you like to talk it, but you just don’t walk it.

            1. Who said they shouldn’t exist? Are they denying their employees things that are required of every employer? Care to sign your name?

2. Dan,

   Do you believe there should be charitable non-profits to feed the poor, educational non-profits, public advocacy non-profits, non-profits like Boys & Girls Clubs?

   Second, the Supreme Court has ruled with regard to public policy advocate non-profits (free speech) and religious non-profits (religious freedom), taxation and tax-deductibility are required under the First Amendment. Frankly, what you want requires affirmation by the Supreme Court and in the case of religious non-profits, you desire overturning 200 years of precedent.

   1. Yes, I believe in charitable non-profits. Religion is not that. They hide under that guise.

      Good, I hope it gets overturned. With religion dying, its only a matter of time. The sooner the gray hair religious nutbags die off the better off we all will be. Religion has no place in the modern world. The organizations themselves are nothing but legalized tax dodgers. How any business or non-profit treats their employees shouldn’t matter what religious beliefs are held. No matter where a person works, they should have the same expectations of their employer. I always laugh when people want the gov’t to consider laws that work with christianity, but if you were to do the same with islam, every christian would be in an uproar. Christians and muslims are nothing more than a bunch of weak minded zealots who want to impose their will on others.

      1. I don’t know that religion is dying, but every single human being is. After they’ve breathed their last they will find out if they were right or wrong, and by then it is too late to change your mind.

         Your comparing of Christianity to Islam shows how misguided and uninformed you are. You will tolerate anything but goodness and morality.

         1. Religion is dieing fast. Just look at the declining rates. When you die, it will be the same as before you were born. Remember that? Didn’t think so. Religion is religion, and the fact that you think there is a difference in christianity and islam makes me laugh. It’s about control through a belief system. Nothing more.

            1. The next to last sentence above shows how truly ignorant you are. I don’t think anything more needs to be said.

               1. The only difference is the death count. Christians are responsible for killing of close to 15 million innocent people. Islam is right around 2 million.

3. Dan,

   Without addressing your views on religion and religious institutions, I reject your premise that it is appropriate for the government to mandate to every detail what benefit or treatment they must afford to their employees, especially if the government’s mandate violates a deeply held belief according to their conscience. If an employee desires a particular benefit not provided by their employer, I respect their freedom to seek employment someplace else.

   1. So if I develop a religion that doesn’t allow anyone other than blonde hair blue eyed american’s to work for me, I should be able to actively promote and implement such a policy? I mean, they can just go somewhere else….right?

4. Daniel,

   The Supreme Court, Congress, and historical precedent has created a series of tests of what qualifies as a religion which encompasses Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, Atheism (but because of their visceral opposition to other religions prefer to organize under categories related to Free Speech), and a host of other religions. If your religion passes the test, I would support your right to organize as a religion. And, if you qualification for employment is fundamental to your religion, I would also support your right to have that as a criteria for employment (and benefits you provide) with the exception such criteria can’t violate other Constitutional provisions (anti-forced servitude is the easiest example of where the Courts have categorically ruled slavery trumps religious freedom).

   1. –The Supreme Court, Congress, and historical precedent has created a series of tests of what qualifies as a religion

      No they have not.

      There is NO judicial, legislative, executive, or administrative test or definition or rule that outlines or defines what constitutes a “religion” for any governmental purpose(s).

      There is no “test” to pass because there is no test. You cannot find such a test, quote from it or cite it or demonstrate that any such test has been used by the gov’t in the last 40-50-75 years.

      Incline, O Lord, Your ear to my prayer, in which I humbly beseech Your mercy, that You would place the soul of This child, which You have allowed to harden into hubris and false pride, into the region of peace and light; and unite in the fellowship of Your Saints. Through Christ our Lord.

      amen

5. Anonymous 2:54:

   Here are some court cases which give definition to what is religion under the Constitution. I am sure it would be helpful for you if it were found easily in a single place but that is not how the SCOTUS works. Rather than giving definitive single definitive definitions, they draw boundaries which indicates what is in and what is out. The lower courts then apply it and they come back in as referees if lower courts disagree or there is a need for greater clarification.

   Davis v. Beason (1890)
   Torcaso v Watkins (1961)
   United States v. Seeger (1965)
   Welsh v. United States (1970)
   Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
   Thomas v. Review Board (1981)

   And based on the above (plus Congressional Acts) via its rule making authority, here is the IRS criteria of what qualifies as church or religious organization eligible for tax-exempt treatment: https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Churches-&-Religious-Organizations/Churches–Defined

   The term church is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code. With the exception of the special rules for church audits, the use of the term church also includes conventions and associations of churches as well as integrated auxiliaries of a church.
   Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:
   Distinct legal existence
   Recognized creed and form of worship
   Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
   Formal code of doctrine and discipline
   Distinct religious history
   Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
   Organization of ordained ministers
   Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
   Literature of its own
   Established places of worship
   Regular congregations
   Regular religious services
   Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
   Schools for the preparation of its members
   The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.

   1. — Rather than giving definitive single definitive definitions, they draw boundaries which indicates what is in and what is out.

      So there is no test(s) for what qualifies as a “religion” , right?

6. –Here are some court cases which give definition to what is religion under the Constitution

   Sorry, the US Sup Ct has NEVER defined what a “religion” is, or any test for what qualifies under the constitution.

   –The Supreme Court, Congress, and historical precedent has created a series of tests of what qualifies as a religion which encompasses Christianity…

   But now you’ve moved from “religion” (found in the constitution) to what the IRS is wiling to do to grant tax exempt status as a “church”. Your previous screed never mentioned “church”, and thus this retort about IRS regulations for tax exempt “churches” is irrelevant.

   Pick one: do you want to address what is defined as a “religion” (your previous effort) or “church” for IRS purposes (now mixed in with religion”)?

   1. The Court cases
   How many of those IRS criteria must be met to pass series of tests to qualify as a “church” under the IRS rules or Sup Ct decisions?

7. Andrew/Julie/PerCuriam/Anonymous,

   The context of what Dan and I were talking about was with regard to tax exemption and certain employee benefit exemptions for religious entities. And, for those exemptions, there are standards (I apologize for using the shorthand word “test” as it probably confused you). If you want to change the subject to the broader question of what exactly is a protected religion with regard to the full gamut of religious freedom, go ahead. I don’t really care.

8. TJ/Daniel/Julie/Andrew/Anonymous/Larry/Pat/Barack/Abraham/Martin/John,

   — regard to tax exemption and certain employee benefit exemptions for religious entities

   No, the IRS tax exemptions are for “church” entities. You still have it messed up.

   — (I apologize for using the shorthand word “test” as it probably confused you).

   I knew exactly what you were talking about. It was clear either you were/are too ignorant to know that there was/is no test for what constitutes a “religion”, or were making it up as you went to try to overwhelm Daniel with your brilliance.

   — I don’t really care.

   Actually you did care because you finally did some [decent] legal research AFTER I corrected your inaccurate legal claims. And once you tired of being corrected, you again returned to your fallback mantra that you just don’t care.

   Sorry to butt in to your exclusive little “debate”. Unlike you, I care about facts and accuracy and collegiality. I address them as a I see them. I don’t need to make verbose sweeping generalizations in a effort to overwhelm those with whom I interact. If you don’t want to interact, that’s fine. But save us from the drama queen exits.

   Besides, when did PP restrict blogging to only two at at time?

   Incline, O Lord, Your ear to my prayer, in which I humbly beseech Your mercy, that You would place the soul of This child, whose heart & mind You have allowed to harden with hubris and false pride and vindictiveness, into the region of peace and light; and unite in the fellowship of Your Saints. Through Christ our Lord, Amen.

   Daniel? Care to engage?

   Anonymous? hello?

   Andrew?

   Julie?

   Barack?

   Abraham, Martin, & John? Anybody here, seen my old friends?

9. Andrew Shear,

   We were talking about entities getting exemptions for being a religious entities. In all cases, I was wholly accurate and you are a petty little pipsqueak who has serious stalking tendencies. You commit calumny with abandon. And there isn’t an ounce of truth in you.

   1. Mr. Jones:

      Its clear that you have confused religion with church.

      Noone has slandered any one else.

      Why not accept the correction instead of being such an a-hole? You of done this on other topics. What is your problem dude?

10. Troy Jonas/Andrew Shear/Julie/Peter the Great/Kaitlyn Jones Jenner, Geo. Jetson

    My comment was directed at those listed in the greeting. My questions were posed to those listed. You were not in either list. Yet you chose to stalk me/us.

    — I don’t really care

    So the prima donna who claimed not to care, cared enough to make another comment, meaner and nastier than before?

    I stalk for the truth. if you cannot handle it, I really don’t care. Harumph! I’m outta here! GOODBYE!!! [slamming return key on keyboard]

    Incline, O Lord, Your ear to my prayer, in which I humbly beseech Your mercy, that You would place the soul of This child, whose heart & mind the Devil has allowed to harden with unChristian words and hypocritical name-calling, into the region of peace and light; and unite in the fellowship of Your Saints. Through Christ my Lord, amen.

11. “There is no cost to the State of South Dakota for its participation in this multi-state litigation.”

    That is a good disclaimer and idea. You never know with 2018 coming up. A guy definitely has to protect their political flanks now days.

    As far as the religion question at hand. Jackley and other AGs’ position on this matter is highly dependent upon the 2014 Hobby Lobby decision which empowers businesses to exempt themselves from some requirements under the ACA do to the established religious beliefs of some business owners. In particular, those business privately held by those of faith.

    Without getting into a debate about the 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, I think from a pure stare decisis standpoint the AGS have a strong constitutional argument. But here is my question and now the debate. Has not the current SCOTUS through the Hobby Lobby decision empowered one or ones to skirt potentially all laws and or regulations in the name of religion and does not such an empowerment reflect less a freedom of religion and more an establishment of religion which the Bill of Rights forbids?

    Has not the SCOTUS with Hobby Lobby created a quandary of rights with a logical path which is lacking over time, but allows one to create any religion whose practices and beliefs unilaterally extend beyond the sanctuary of that religion and unto the greater whole – a religious reality analogous to the fear many on the right show when they advocate or enact laws to outlaw sharia law and its precedence potential not only in the courts but also throughout the general population as a whole as we interact among ourselves regulated by past court decisions in our day to day lives ?

12. –Has not the current SCOTUS through the Hobby Lobby decision empowered one or ones to skirt potentially all laws and or regulations in the name of religion

    No.

    RFRA requires the federals gov’t to make reasonable accommodations (“least restrictive alternatives” = LRAs) when enforcing legislation & regs for those people who have objections based on sincerely held religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby held that RFRA covers closely held for-profit corporations.

    The gov’t admitted that it had already formulated LRAs from the ACA for individuals, religious orgs, and non-profits– it just did not want to allow for profit corporations to be able to take advantage of those LRAs. The feds really weren’t able to justify the disparate treatment of non-profits & for-profits.

    The court also addressed your concerns about a slippery slope and did not find it compelling.

13. Anonymous, thank you for the break down on this. You obviously have more faith than I in the court system longterm, when a conservative court claims there are no “compelling” issues involving a slippery slope with this issue. however, I think there still are concerns.

    On of the fundamental rights of freedom of religion is the fact that the individual defines the religion and its practices and not the state absent a religious belief or practice that does harm to individuals within or outside the given religion. Given this reality, I feel under a continuation of conservative bench dominance with the SCOTUS that the mere assurance that we need not worry about a slippery slope is a classical form of judicial self fiat dismissal, which Rehnquist in his time was highly known for and obviously still permeates through the current conservative Supreme Court.

    My concerns may only be academic if the court swings to the left with a continuation of Democratic presidents with the hope of a turnover on this matter.

    However, there is no guarantee of that for those of us on the left or all of us who want to go about our daily lives not judged or subjected to the religious beliefs of a shop owner down the street or a non-profit who could potentially help me or employ me or others.

    1. –My concerns may only be academic if the court swings to the left with a continuation of Democratic presidents with the hope of a turnover on this matter.

       The way to overturn Hobby Lobby is for Congress to repeal RCRA or change it. THAT’s ALL IT WOULD TAKE.

14. –On of the fundamental rights of freedom of religion

    RCRA is a federal statute (i.e., passed by Congress) meant to accommodate religious believers in their interactions with federal legislation & regulations, requiring “strict scrutiny” of the burden that the leg/reg may impose. This strict scrutiny then requires the least restrictive alternative analysis.

    RCRA was passed by a Dem congress and a Dem president FOLLOWING a supreme ct decision (Employment Div v. Smith–written by Scalia & joined by conservatives) REFUSING to apply strict scrutiny to federal leg/reg that applied neutrally and broadly, but impinged on religious beliefs.

    In other words, RCRA was a Democrat bill meant to reverse a supreme court ruling by conservatives justices (mostly) to limit the bases on which and scope of religious objections that could be made to facially neutral federal leg/reg.

    –However, there is no guarantee of that for those of us on the left

    You have it assbackwards.

    RCRA–that was used to nullify parts of the ACA– was written and passed and enacted by leftie Dems (in 1993) to reverse CONSERVATIVE justices’ (Employment Div v. Smith, 1990) adherence to long-held judicial review of leg/reg that burdened religious folks. by refusing to give those religious folks much if any standing in fed ct to challenge the leg/reg!

    Background: Smith was denied unemployment benefits because he enjoyed smoking peyote in his Native American “church”. He fought. Lost in Employment Div. v. Smith (1990) , and so Democrats nationwide rose up in anger against whitey taking benefits away from peyote-smoking religious NAs–so they passed RCRA!!!

    As usual, liberals’s zeal to pass legislation (RCRA) “to solve problems” returned to bite them in the arse.

    Lastly, Hobby Lobby was NOT about the Constitution’s “freedom of religion” or Establishment clauses or other constitutional issues. It was about federal legislation (RCRA) and whether it applied to other federal legislation (ACA). The Court rightly found that it did.

15. Let us see, we have a case involving a Native American smoking peyote who was denied their unemployment benefits. So from a public image stand point for the court we are talking about an unemployed minority who consumes an illegal substance. Leave it to a bunch of conservative judges to not touch that one on religious grounds. A course it would take a more liberal congress to enact the protections in the absence of the conservative courts concerns for religious freedoms when it deals with an unemployed minority who enjoys weed.

    The Smith case and the Hobby Lobby cases may both be about religion and religious freedoms, but they are also apples and oranges at the same time. Denying a person the right to practice their religion is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, but empowering a business entity to force its religious beliefs upon its employees and or potential employees is a whole other ball game.

    What happens if a small town is highly dependent upon the employment opportunities of one given local business. Does that mean in order to be gainfully employed in that town within reason you must be beholden to the religious beliefs of that owner in terms of benefits and workplace rights and rules because of Hobby Lobby? Apparently or conceivably unless you cline to SCOTUS’s faint non compelling reassurance in Hobby Lobby….

    As far as having Congress being capable to change the rules or laws on this. You are correct in theory… and I am sure the current Speaker and Senate Majority leader would be the most cooperative on that one given their party’s high dependence upon the fundamental vote to stay in power. 😉

    “Lastly, Hobby Lobby was NOT about the Constitution’s “freedom of religion” or Establishment clauses or other constitutional issues. It was about federal legislation (RCRA) and whether it applied to other federal legislation (ACA). The Court rightly found that it did.”

    Isn’t every court decision a constitutional question or the correct application of an upheld constitutional right or obvious literal understanding? Come on, don’t give me any attorney speak here.

    In the first ACA decision, some justices saw it as a right to tax, while other justices saw it as a question as to whether the Congress had the right to regulate health care. These were questions which evolved beyond the arguments of the two sides in the arguments. In fact, the Obama administration denied that it was even a tax rather a fee do to a regulation, but they won thanks to Roberts and the Congresses’ constitutional right to tax. Such judicial pondering is constant and to suggest that some questions are not constitutional or have the potential constitutional navigating at any and all times is rudimentary at best and in denial of the pending storm cloud above all justices’ or judges heads when they make decisions in relation to what the constitution requires both in a literal sense as well as from stare decisis on each and every decision they make…. Heck, our Supreme Court exists because of the Constitution!

    “As usual, liberals’s zeal to pass legislation (RCRA) “to solve problems” returned to bite them in the arse.”

    Not really, instead a conservative court thought an owner had the right to dictate what type of benefits its employees would receive based on the owner’s religious beliefs, which in no way is analogous to allowing an individual in their own time and place to practice their religious beliefs… The Hobby Lobby decision was pure conservative judicial activism…and that is what bit us….

    “Lastly, Hobby Lobby was NOT about the Constitution’s “freedom of religion” or Establishment clauses or other constitutional issues. It was about federal legislation (RCRA) and whether it applied to other federal legislation (ACA). The Court rightly found that it did.”

    If that is the case, then why in an earlier comment did you find the need to raise the fact that the conservative court in Hobby Lobby felt there would be no compelling “slippery slope” concerns with their decision? Your arguments are filled with attorney double speak.

16. –Denying a person the right to practice their religion is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, but empowering a business entity to force its religious beliefs upon its employees and or potential employees is a whole other ball game.

    No. That’s not what HL was about and that’s not what HL was doing. Even the Obama’s SG never claimed such a thing.

    –The Hobby Lobby decision was pure conservative judicial activism

    Huh? It was a court interpreting one statute enacted by liberals (RFRA) as applied to another enacted by liberals( ACA). You’re nuts!

    –Isn’t every court decision a constitutional question or the correct application of an upheld constitutional right or obvious literal understanding? Come on, don’t give me any attorney speak here.

    No. Federal courts also interpret federal STATUTES like RFRA and ACA (even federal regulations). That’s what they did in Employment Div. and Hobby Lobby. Go read Hobby Lobby: there were NO constitutional question addressed or settled by the court.

    –If that is the case, then why in an earlier comment did you find the need to raise the fact that the conservative court in Hobby Lobby felt there would be no compelling “slippery slope” concerns with their decision?

    “Slippery slope “concerns also arise when interpreting and applying federal STATUTES and regulations. Some justices did address “slippery slopes”-type scenarios in the HL case.

    This isn’t “attorney speak”–it’s basic understanding of what federal courts do–it’s not always about the Constitution or rights. It’s called “jurisdiction.”

    Look, until you understand the jurisdiction of federal courts, and cases like Employ Div and HL, you’re really just ranting about situations and controversies wholly created by liberals.

    sorry if that bugs ya, but you have a civics deficit.

17. Emply Div v. Smith, 1990: (wiki)

    Scalia: “A person cannot defy neutral laws of general applicability even as an expression of religious belief. “To permit this,” wrote Justice Scalia, citing the 1878 Reynolds v. United States decision, “would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

    Scalia AGREED with you Winston!!!

    The SCt agreed with you…until….the democratic congress & president in 1993 changed the law!! It was called RFRA.

    HK would have NEVER been accepted or decided except for RFRA!

    Who fault is that? Not the Court’s! Not Rep’s!

    god help us

18. Anonymous,

    No civics deficit, but there is a logic deficit at hand and it is not mine. Your initial “slippery slope” comment actually indicts the efficacy of all of the other comments you have hence made.

    A course you make an acceptance to that rule after the fact with the following comment:

    “‘Slippery slope’ concerns also arise when interpreting and applying federal STATUTES and regulations. Some justices did address “slippery slopes”-type scenarios in the HL case.”

    But what you do not admit is that your “slippery slope” reference was made in the context of my initial constitutional concerns and not any statute concerns… you brought the latter up.

    You initially bought into the constitution debate, but when you decided you could not win on that level you tried a smoke and mirror attempt to confuse the true issue at hand with a tangent regulatory/statutory argument.

    Then you try to immune yourself from any further discussion on the matter by blaming it all on liberals with the following comment:

    “Look, until you understand the jurisdiction of federal courts, and cases like Employ Div and HL, you’re really just ranting about situations and controversies wholly created by liberals.”

    Next, let us look at this comment:

    “This isn’t “attorney speak”–it’s basic understanding of what federal courts do–it’s not always about the Constitution or rights. It’s called ‘jurisdiction.'”

    No, it’s attorney double speak and now you are going off on a tangent once again to try to win the argument. You can always tell when someone is losing an argument. They eventually become tangent to the germane issue at hand and then they begin to ridicule or belittle their opponents when the facts begin to wane for them….. Oh, by the way, even a “jurisdiction”al question is constitutional in nature….I learned that one in civics class…. image that…..

19. There’s no “argument” to win to lose.

    HL was NOT about any interpretation of constitutional provisions.

    Gawd Winston/TJ–get off the Colorado bong juice.

20. Your Honor,

    I ask for summary judgment for the entire aforementioned debate do to Anonymous’s following statement:

    “The court also addressed your concerns about a slippery slope and did not find it compelling.”

    And just for fun, a declaratory judgment too the question of whether the comment:

    “Gawd Winston/TJ–get off the Colorado bong juice.”

    Meets the… ” They eventually become tangent to the germane issue at hand and then they begin to ridicule or belittle their opponents when the facts begin to wane for them…..” requirement standard for a germane debate….

Comments are closed.