Court to Priests for Life: "You Have to Wait"
Judge
dismisses case for now, but protects Priests for Life from HHS Mandate; Priests
for Life to re-file.
On
Friday, in Federal Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Frederic
Block issued an order granting the government's motion to dismiss the case, Priests for Life vs. Sebelius, on
grounds of "lack of ripeness."
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, issued this statement:
"The Court's decision Friday does not mean that we are being forced to
obey the mandate now. In fact, this same court protected us from having that
happen, by having the government stipulate back in December, in writing, that
it would not enforce the mandate against Priests for Life in 2013.
"Moreover, the dismissal does not mean we've "lost the case;" it
means the court is not ready to decide on the case. The court is not saying we
are wrong in our arguments with the Obama Administration and the HHS. Rather, it
is issuing a procedural, technical ruling saying that we have to wait before
the court decides on the merits of those arguments. The reason for the wait is
the Administration's promise of further changes to the mandate, changes
expected by August of this year. The Court is saying, 'Wait and see if, once
the changes to the mandate come, you still want to challenge it.'
"In Judge Block's order on Friday, he states, 'The
proposed regulations are not fit for review since they are still being
formed…If Priests for Life is not content with the ultimate regulations, it may
renew its legal challenge at that point.' This is what has happened
in over 20 other cases by similar organizations.
"What do we think of this?
"The Administration has already announced proposed changes, all of which
are unacceptable and do not address our legal or moral concerns. The
Administration is delaying the inevitable resolution of the legal challenge,
and then arguing that the delay itself
is grounds for dismissing the challenge. These are cowardly games which show
that the Administration just wants these lawsuits to go away. The
Administration should not do this and the court should not allow it.
"Moreover, the fact is that the mandate, as it stands now, is law. Its promises about the
future are not law. Nor is there any
indication that these future changes in any way will constitute exemption from
the coerced coverage of objectionable activities.
"What we are saying is simple: the law, as it is now, infringes on our
rights, and we only have temporary protection from the damage it does. Right
now, the government is momentarily ceasing its illegal conduct so that the
legal challenge to it is dismissed, only to return to the conduct later. That
is why we are petitioning, and will continue to petition, the courts to declare
the mandate unconstitutional. And we have every confidence that we will be
successful."
Robert J. Muise, Esq., American Freedom Law Center, stated, "While we
disagree with the court's ruling, it is not a ruling on the merits of our legal
challenge to the HHS mandate. Consequently, as soon as the government
'finalizes' its implementing regulations in August, we will be right back in
court, challenging the mandate and protecting religious freedom."
Charles S. LiMandri, also a lead attorney for Priests for Life in the case,
stated, "We are pleased that we were successful in securing a Stipulation
from the Department of Justice and an Order from the court that
guarantees that Priests for Life will not have the current unconscionable HHS
Mandate enforced against it. The Department of Justice has further represented
in court that final amended rules concerning the HHS Mandate will be in effect
by August 2013. If, as we expect, the final HHS regulations continue to be morally
objectionable, Priests for Life will still have five months in which to
initiate further legal proceedings before they would have to comply with them.
We are confident that unless the HHS Mandate is amended to include acceptable
conscience protections, that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately hold that
it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution."
No comments:
Post a Comment