Category Archives: health care

TMLC Files Lawsuit Challenging the HHS Mandate On Behalf of Legatus – Nation’s Largest Organization of Top Catholic Business Leaders

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced it has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the HHS mandate, on behalf of Legatus, the Nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business CEOs and professional leaders.

Also joining in the lawsuit as Plaintiffs are the Weingartz Supply Company, a Michigan retailer since 1945, and its President who is a member of Legatus. The 42-page Complaint was filed late yesterday afternoon against the Obama administration in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Legatus” is the Latin word for “ambassador”, and its members are called upon to become “ambassadors for Christ” in living and sharing their Catholic Faith in their business, professional and personal lives. It was founded in 1987 by Tom Monaghan, the former owner of Domino’s Pizza, to bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life – Faith, Family and Business. The lawsuit was filed on the 25th Anniversary of its founding. Legatus currently has over 4,000 members in 73 chapters located in 31 states.

The first paragraph of the lawsuit succinctly sets forth the nature of the case:

“This is a case about religious freedom. Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father of our country, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third president, when describing the construct of our Constitution proclaimed, ‘No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.’”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “Whether you are a Catholic or Protestant or have no religion at all, the free exercise of religion and right of conscience is our most fundamental human right and must be vigorously defended on behalf of all Americans. Or else our constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper with nice sounding words. That’s why I believe every American regardless of religious beliefs has a stake in the successful outcome of this lawsuit.”

The purpose of the lawsuit is to seek a court ruling that permanently blocks the implementation of the HHS Mandate requiring employers and individuals to obtain insurance coverage for abortions and contraception on the grounds that it imposes clear violations of conscience on Americans who morally object to abortion and contraception.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech and the Establishment Clause. It also claims that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act enacted by Congress.

Thomas More Law Center attorney, Erin Mersino, is the lead counsel in the lawsuit. Joining as co-counsel is the Law Office of Charles LiMandri, the Law Center’s West Coast Regional Director and a member of Legatus.

Named as Defendants in the lawsuit are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Hilda Solis, Secretary of the Department of Labor; Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Department of Treasury; and their respective departments.

European Development Aid and Funding Abortions

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(New York C-FAM) The European Commission is using development funds to pay for abortions in countries that restrict the procedure and funding the two largest abortion providers in the world, International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International, according to a new report by European Dignity Watch.

The report The Funding of Abortion through EU Development Aid reveals Marie Stopes International received over $30 million from the European Union. The Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, a high level global partnership that includes the UNFPA and provides abortion kits to developing countries, was given close to $32 million over a 30-month period ending in June 2011.

The report discloses that EU money was spent to fund abortions in developing countries with strict abortion laws through the EU’s Development Aid and Public Health budgets for projects related to “sexual and reproductive health.” But European Dignity Watch (EDW) says the “term ‘sexual and reproductive health’ as defined by the EU excludes abortion explicitly”.

International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International asked and received funding projects that included “safe abortion,” “emergency contraception,” “training in manual vacuum aspiration,” and “menstrual regulation” to admittedly bypass legal restrictions on abortions in countries like Bangladesh, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Peru.

The term “menstrual regulation,” the report explains, is a less explicit term for surgical abortions. It is described by Planned Parenthood as the process of emptying the uterus through the high-powered suction created by a manual vacuum aspirator. The device is inserted in the dilated cervix of a woman who “suspects” being pregnant rather than one who “knows” she is pregnant. After the procedure, it is impossible to tell whether a woman was pregnant unless the extracted tissue, which may include an implanted embryo, is examined microscopically.

The report denounces the European Commission, which manages the budget of the European Union, for acting illegally. The report asserts that the Commission does not have the authority to fund abortions because of the limited authority of the Commission, the Commission’s own statements, and the need for consensus to act on foreign policy. Each EU member state has a seat on the Commission, and several EU countries have strict abortion laws.

European Dignity Watch based the report on disclosures from a document request for all papers and correspondence between the EU Commission, the two abortion giants, and the Center for Reproductive Rights for the period running from 2005 to 2010. Not all the information requested from the EU Commission was handed over. The report calls the findings so far “cursory” and asks EU Parliamentarians to investigate further and take action.

The report was presented at the European Parliament in Brussels during an event that was part of the “Week for Life” initiative organized by EU Parliamentarians held in March.

For decades, public funding of abortion in Europe would not have been considered controversial. European Dignity Watch, which was formed in 2010, is just one of many recently formed politically active pro-life organizations in Europe. This development shows how the pro-life movement is gaining momentum in Europe.

Stefano Gennarini writes for C-FAM. This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

What Do Pharmaceuticals, Toxins and Nazi War Criminals Have in Common?

The short answer is vaccines.

In several articles published in Natural News, vaccines are reported to contain neurotoxins like thimerosal, which is a mercury-based preservative. Just a tiny amount of mercury ingested by human or animal can result in certain death. Thimerosal is not the only toxin used in making vaccines. This much the FDA admitted in a recent court case, according to Natural News.

In his article, S. D. Wells identified 11 more toxins found in vaccines. Among them are several additional neurotoxins, phenoxyethanol and MSG. Consuming phenoxyethanol is comparable to eating cosmetics. It is can shut down the human central nervous system, liver and kidneys. MSG (monosodium glutamate) can cause central nervous system disorders and especially brain damage in children. Bovine cow serum is another toxic ingredient of many vaccines. This serum is an extract of cow skin that is known to cause connective tissue disorders, arthritis, lupus, and other diseases. Human albumin is the protein part of human blood. When extracted from pooled blood, it can result in the loss of body cell mass and immune deficiency disorders thus increasing the likelihood of contracting viruses and other deadly diseases. Then there is formaldehyde that can cause liver damage, gastrointestinal issues, reproductive deformation, respiratory distress and cancer. Plus, formaldehyde has been known to fail to deactivate the virus the vaccine is intended to cure, thus enabling a live virus to enter your blood and infect your system. Maybe that is why formaldedhyde is ranked one of the most hazardous compounds to human health.

An interview was recently discovered in which Dr. Maurice Hilleman, former scientist at Merck, admitted he and others knew the vaccines they were making contained 40 or more viruses and bacteria including carcinogens.

By the way, Hitler’s investments in Merck Pharmacuetical were substantial, according to Wells.

What does this have to do with Nazi war criminals?

As Wells pointed out in his article, some of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies have been lead by Nazi war criminals. I.G. Farben, BASF, Hoechst, Dow and Bayer not only helped build the Nazi gas chambers but also tested their vaccines on those Jews as well. Because I.G. Farben was the Third Reich’s equivalent to our Food & Drug Administration and Center for Disease Control., those corporations had Hitler’s approval.

After being convicted at the Nurremburg trials and serving a short prison term, Fritz ter Meer was appointed as Chairman of the Board at Bayer while Carl Krauch, an executive at Hitler’s I.G. Farben, became Chairman of the Board at BASF.

While head of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Fritz ter Meer along four other drug companies convinced the United Nations to implement a plan called Codex Alimentarius, which means book of food rules. In a report titled Nutricide: The Killing Camps of Codex Alimentarius, Rima E. Laibow, MD claims the same ideology of ter Meer that included eugenics, sterilizations, ethnic cleansing, and the extermination of worthless consumers of Germany’s limited resources like the Jews is embedded in the UN sanctioned Codex Alimentarius. In this case, it is the useless eaters of the world’s supposed limited food supply who will benefit the world by eating to death that is eating food prepared for their economic status and tastes.

Remember, Margaret Sangster and followers used abortion to benefit America by helping the poor in urban black communities kill their unborn by the millions. With the birth of organizations like Planned Parenthood, Sangster’s socialist work has progressed up the social food chain to the middle class and university students.

As eugenics came to America during the 1960s in the form of abortion, so too did toxic vaccines. Maybe that is why drugs companies have government approval to drug America’s children with both mind altering and supposed sexual disease preventing dope. (See the stories by Washington Post, Huffington Post, and Citizens for Health.)

Now, Nutricide is coming to America. Our federal government intends to harmonize FDA regulations with the Nazi-born Codex Alimentarius, according to Rima Laibow.

Oddly enough, Laibow’s underlying concern is freedom. Freedom of all consumers of have health enriching food. Whether they be poor or rich, urban or rural, Jew or non-Jew, or citizens of first world or third world countries, Laibow seems to believes all people should have access to food and food supplements void of toxic chemicals, harmful bacteria and deadly viruses.

Looking forward to the Passover and Easter holiday, one of the things science and history ancient Egypt reveals the Jews were delivered from was slavery to a disease-ridden toxic environment that contaminated their food. Many died or lived in misery as a result. May the Living God and His Christ deliver us all from the life-diminshing conditions created by the heartless but laughing Pharaohs of the 21st Century.

Overturning Wickard Key to Ending Obamacare, All Other Unconstitutional Uses of the Comm

By Daniel Downs

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare. In many ways, the Court will decide the future of American liberty. The Justices will determine whether federal bureaucrats can dictate the purchase of consumer services and goods. The Court will also determine whether Congress and the President can continue increasing government programs and ever-increasing debt burden on American workers, business, investors, and families. In a recent program, Glen Beck compared the number of new agencies created by FDR’s New Deal to the astronomical increase of federal agencies created under Obamacare (see Beck’s video). Liberty Legal Foundation is challenging this issue and related tax code and debt escalation that will incur to the American people. More importantly, the Foundation will attempt to convince the Supreme Court to overturn the source of the problem. That problem is Wickard v Filburn that essentially handed Congress unfettered powers to enlarge federal authority over all aspects of our individual and corporate lives under the Commerce Clause as well as to ever increase the national debt.

As you can see in the chart below, the Wickard ruling opened the floodgates to federal regulations, new federal agencies, astronomical increases of new federal tax codes, federal spending, and federal debt.

The options to force Congress to limit its continued bureaucratic growth are few. One is get Congress to pass law regulating its own creation of debt producing regulations. However, the long debated balance budget legislation and tax reform along the lines of the Fair Tax or flat tax proposal have consistently been voted down. Even if Congress forced itself to balance the budget, its unaccountable growth of power and spending would merely be slowed. Congress still would not have to seek the approval of the citizens its members supposedly represent, which leads to the unlikely passage of an amendment to the Constitution to make Congress seek voter approval for debt increasing legislation. The best solution to reigning in Congress’s seemingly uncontrollable efforts to regulate our daily lives and spending too much of our money is to change how the Congress, the Executive branch and the Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause.

Let’s hope and pray that the argument to be presented by Liberty Legal Foundation lawyers convince the Supreme Court to overturn Wickard.

To learn more about Liberty Legal Foundation’s suit against Obamacare, go to http://libertylegalfoundation.org.

Rutherford Institute Asks Supreme Court to Declare Individual Mandate Provision of Obama Administration’s Healthcare Reform Unconstitutional

(WASHINGTON, DC) — The Rutherford Institute has filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that will determine whether the major overhaul of the nation’s healthcare financing system adopted by Congress in 2010 will survive. The Institute’s brief in U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services v. State of Florida asks the Court to strike down the “Individual Mandate” provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which requires almost all Americans to purchase health insurance, as an unwarranted and unprecedented exercise of power by the federal government. Arguing that by enacting the Individual Mandate “Congress has intruded on individuals’ rights to make private decisions about their own health and in the process has disrupted the federal-state balance” of power, Rutherford Institute attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling that the Individual Mandate is an improper exercise by Congress of its authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The brief in U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services v. State of Florida is available here.

“No American should be penalized for choosing not to have health insurance,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “The Individual Mandate provision of the Obama Administration’s Healthcare Reform legislation is an unprecedented exercise of federal power in a field that has historically been a province of the states.”

After taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama embarked on a legislative initiative to overhaul the nation’s health care system, resulting in the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. An integral part of the legislation is the Individual Mandate which commands that, with limited exceptions, all individuals within the United States ensure that they and their dependents are covered by a minimum level of health insurance each month. Individuals who fail to comply with the Individual Mandate are subject to penalty which is statutorily set at $695 per person, including those for whom the noncompliant person is responsible. The Act provides that Congress enact the Individual Mandate under its power to regulate “interstate commerce” as set forth in Article I, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Shortly after its enactment, Florida and 12 other states filed a lawsuit challenging various aspects of the Act, including the Individual Mandate, arguing that Congress had exceeded its power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the states’ claim that the Individual Mandate was unconstitutional and constituted an unprecedented exercise of authority by Congress in requiring persons to purchase a product for the remainder of their lives.

In their amicus brief, Rutherford Institute attorneys ask the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the appeals court’s decision, arguing that a ruling upholding the Individual Mandate “has implications not only as to the freedom of citizens to decide how to provide for their health care, but more broadly on the federalism embodied in the United States Constitution that is meant to preserve liberty by preventing the concentration of power in the national government.” The Institute’s brief points out that the Courts have traditionally recognized that the Constitution permits states to make general health and welfare decisions for the public good, and that the Individual Mandate is contrary to this rule and not a “necessary and proper” exercise of Congressional authority.

Alfred W. Putnam, Jr. and other attorneys with the law firm of Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP, of Philadelphia assisted The Rutherford Institute in drafting and filing the amicus brief.

Ohio House Votes Against the Obama Mandate

(COLUMBUS) – The Ohio House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 35, calling on President Obama to reverse the HHS mandate requiring employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs.

“Requiring religious-based organizations to cover such drugs blatantly violates the conscience rights of individuals,” said Stephanie Krider, Director of Legislative Affairs for Ohio Right to Life. “If an employer has a moral objection to such coverage, this new federal mandate will force them to comply. This completely contradicts our rights of religious liberty.”

The “Obama mandate” requires health plans to cover all FDA-approved forms of contraception which include both Plan B and Ella, more commonly known as “emergency contraception” or “the morning-after pill”. There is significant evidence that these drugs can cause an abortion by preventing a human embryo from implanting in the womb.

Even with the so-called “compromise” offered last week, Ohio Right to Life and other pro-life groups will continue to protest this overreaching mandate.This resolution manifests that Ohioans will not stand for the outright denial of freedom by any version of the mandate.

Ohio Right to Life is grateful to Representative Barbara Sears and Representative Peter Stautberg for sponsoring this life-affirming resolution.

“People of all faiths, including Catholicism, Judaism, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others, should be very concerned that the government is forcing its will upon the conscience of its congregates,” said Representative Sears. “This is a critical issue and a clear overreach of the federal government’s power into an area they should not be meddling.”

“The federal government should not force employers to offer a product that violates their conscience or force religious leaders to act against their own teachings,” said Representative Stautberg. “We are sending a message to President Obama and Washington that here in the state of Ohio, we believe that religious freedom is worth defending.”

WHO’s Report Is It Anyway?

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

(NEW YORK, C-FAM) In recent weeks a new paper asserting that all nations should liberalize abortion laws has been characterized by the news media as an authoritative study by the World Health Organization (WHO), but the paper’s fine print says it’s not a WHO report. Why the mismatch?

The report found that “unsafe” abortion has increased in recent years despite the fact that abortions overall are declining. It concluded that in order to make abortion “safe” and to reduce worldwide maternal deaths, restrictive abortion laws should be rescinded.

Media coverage served mainly to disseminate rather than critique the report, which was published in the British medical journal Lancet. The Lancet also characterized it as a WHO study, a joint project with the Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, an abortion advocacy organization.

Notably absent from news coverage of the story is that that the WHO has distanced itself both from the views contained in this study and the views of previous studies by the same authors. Two of the authors, including one WHO staff member, collaborated previously on a paper asserting abortion is a human right.

Just over a month ago, a top WHO official asked that the signers of the San Jose Articles remove a footnote in the Articles stating that the WHO had said, “[a]ccess to safe, legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live.” (The San Jose Articles is an expert statement on the status of the unborn child in international law.) The quote appeared in a WHO paper, published on the WHO website, and referring all inquiries about its findings to WHO. Yet the official asserted that due to a disclaimer in the paper’s fine print, the Articles could not accurately say that WHO embraced the view. Organizers of the San Jose Articles removed the note.

The new study carries the same disclaimer, which states, “The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this paper and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of their institutions or those of funding agencies.”

Experts have sharply criticized the most recent report’s methodology, including the lack of data regarding abortion, a reliance on arbitrarily inflated abortion statistics, the conflating of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and planned or induced abortions, and the use of quasi-legal terms to define its dependent variable, “safe” abortion.

Such fundamental flaws would have made the paper warrant far less credence than it received. Arguably, it was the WHO imprimatur that caused many to overlook the errors in the rush to publicize it.

This raises the question: what is the position of WHO if it does not endorse the statement that abortion is a human right? And what is the position of WHO regarding whether all nations must liberalize abortion laws, the conclusion of this most recent paper?

If WHO’s position is neutral, why doesn’t this paper say so? The absence of such a statement leaves readers and reporters with the impression that the unambiguous declaration on abortion is the position of the organization that is disseminating the study.

Friday Fax asked WHO to answer these questions but the organization did not comment.

It is reasonable to conclude that WHO officials are trying to have it both ways: to endorse the controversial research but allow the organization to disclaim views when pressed.

Scientists have noted that WHO’s policy making role is in conflict with its research role in the area of reproductive health. They have urged WHO colleagues to abandon the political side of their work. The existence of a disclaimer in this latest, highly controversial and badly flawed paper, makes this recommendation all the more cogent – and urgent.

Susan Yoshihara is Senior Vice President for Research at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM and is republished here with permission.

Pro-Life Leaders Slam White House ‘Compromise’ On Birth Control Mandate

The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work. The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,” said Smith. “The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction,” Smith continued. “It states, for example, that religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.”

Source: Life Site News, Feb. 10, 2012.

In Defense of Religious Liberty : A Declaration Concerning Obamacare

Our federal government, charged under the Constitution not only to respect, but to protect and defend, our most fundamental freedoms, has now imposed upon people of all faiths a mandate that their institutions provide insurance to their employees to pay for abortion inducing drugs, surgical sterilizations, and contraceptives.

There is, for all intents and purposes, no recognition of the rights of conscience for those Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or other faith-based employers to be free of this imposition.

The Catholic Church, as the largest provider of faith-based education, health care, and social services for the poor, is on the front lines of the struggle, but because of the required abortion drug coverage and the violation of religious freedom at the heart of the mandate, it is a struggle that implicates all believers. If the mandate is rammed down the throats of Catholics, no people of faith will be safe.

The Catholic bishops of the United States, dozens of whom are signers of the Manhattan Declaration, have made clear that they cannot and will not bend to the mandate. If forced to choose between the law of Christ and the edict of Caesar, they have no doubt about which master they will serve. If necessary, they are prepared to close institutions, and even go to jail, rather than comply with a human dictate in violation of what they believe, in conscience, to be the will of God.

All of us pledged such fidelity in the Manhattan Declaration. We saw this day coming, though few of us realized it would come so soon. Now we face the test: Will we, as we promised to do, “ungrudgingly give to Caesar whatbelongs to Caesar, but under no circumstances give to Caesar what belongs to God”?

The above was adapted from the Manhattan Declaration website on February 7th by Carol Conley. Conley is director of the Maine Family Policy Council.

Kasich Administration To Invest $350k To Better Coordinate Prenatal Care

The Governor’s Office of Health Transformation announced yesterday that it would partner with Nationwide Children’s Hospital’s Partners for Kids to replicate in Southeastern Ohio a Mansfield program that has show great strides in improving the health of at-risk mothers and their babies. (see Mansfield Journal News, DFeb. 3 2012)

Founded in 1999, the Community Health Access Project (CHAP) has achieved a 30-percent reduction in the risk for low-weight births in Richland County. The project uses a Community Pathway Model to improve health and preventative care for high-risk mothers and children in difficult-to-serve areas. It coordinates care for individuals within targeted medical “pathways,” such as medication assessment, smoking cessation and pregnancy and postpartum care.

OHT will join with Partners for Kids to use community liaisons to check on at-risk pregnant women to ensure that they are getting the preventive care they need and also help with non-medical needs such as transportation or housing.

In announcing OHT’s $350,000 investment to replicate the program for Medicaid beneficiaries in Appalachia, Director Greg Moody said the model was selected because it has improved outcomes and reduced costs.

“This initiative fits perfectly with the governor’s objectives to improve care coordination for vulnerable Ohioans and to pay for value, not volume, in health care,” Moody said.

Source: Health Policy Review Feb. 3, 2012