Federal Court Tells Obama Administration To Re-Write Contraceptive Mandate

Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius

In a case brought against the Obamacare mandate for contraceptive coverage, the Obama administration has argued that the suit is invalid because a) they would never enforce the mandate and b) they’re going to re-write it anyway.

The court ruled on that argument, and didn’t give it a lot of credence ordering that the mandate be rewritten:

The Obama administration “represented to the court that it would never enforce [the mandate] in its current form against the appellants or those similarly situated as regards contraceptive services,” the three judges hearing the case wrote in their order. The Obama team made that promise during oral arguments against Wheaton College and The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which sued over the contraception mandate but lost at the lower court level.

“There will, the government said, be a different rule for entities like the appellants . . . We take the government at its word and will hold it to it,” the judges wrote. They ruled that the Obama administration must rewrite the regulation by August 2013 and provide updates to the court every 60 days. If the government fails to do so, the lawsuits may proceed.

The court also noted that the Obama administration had not made such an expansive pledge outside the courtroom.

As the article notes, if the policy isn’t changed, the court will allow the lawsuit challenging it to go forward.

So, expect some movement on this issue from the Obama administration next year.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • WOOF

    They’ll still be rewriting ACA in 2017 when Hillary is President.

    • Onslaught1066

      Can we really afford to have as president a person whose loss of blood once a month causes her to faint and suffer concussion and possibly death?

      • Bat One

        Nonsense! She’s well past that age – and looks it!

        • Onslaught1066

          I was going for benefit of the doubt.

          • banjo kid

            How nice of you .

    • kevindf

      If she had a concussion, there might be permanent brain damage. Can the country risk that in its President?

  • Bat One

    Considering the Obama regime’s history of ignoring federal court orders in Florida, New Orleans, and Atlanta to name but three, there’s not much likelihood that they will pay any attention to this court’s ruling.

    As for promising to rewrite the mandate, the list of Obama’s unfulfilled and broken promises is almost long enough to warrant its own wing in the Library of Congress. One more will be no surprise.

    • sbark

      Exactly, I wonder if that precedent (simply ignoring the courts) is why SCOTUS JUdge Roberts did what he did last time. I think he full well knew if he came down on the side with Thomas/Scalia/Kennedy etc…………the American Dem’cat party would just have ignored the decision—and continued to force ObamaCare .

      It would have exposed the weakness, (lack of enforcement in balance of powers–checks and balances), so he pushed it to the next level of checks and balances available—–states and the state run exchanges.

      Now, can IRS pressure and partially funded mandates to alot of states that need the Fed money trump the states that despise ObamaCare. The States are being pacified by flow of federal money, in the same way Indiv. voters are.

  • $16179444

    love the irony – “Gov’t, keep your hands off my body, but pay for it”