featured graphic for U.S. department of health and human services

US Department of Health and Human Services notifies California that health insurance abortion mandate violates federal law

[On Friday, January 24], the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), announced an action to protect human life and the conscience rights of all Americans.

OCR is issuing a Notice of Violation to the state of California, formally notifying California that it cannot impose universal abortion coverage mandates on health insurance plans and issuers in violation of federal conscience laws. California has deprived over 28,000 people of plans that did not cover elective abortion, but now must cover abortion due to California’s mandate.

OCR’s investigation arose from two complaints alleging that California engaged in unlawful discrimination when California’s Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) ordered, in August 2014, that all health plan issuers under its jurisdiction must offer coverage for elective abortion in every plan they offer. The two complainants are the Missionary Guadalupanas of the Holy Spirit, a Catholic order of religious sisters, and Skyline Wesleyan Church, a non-profit Christian church—organizations whose religious beliefs preclude them, in good conscience, from helping to pay for insurance coverage for elective abortions.

Pursuant to 45 CFR Part 88 (effective March 2011), OCR has completed the investigation of the complaints and determined that California violated the Weldon Amendment by mandating that California health care plan issuers cover elective abortion in each plan product, and continues to violate federal law by continuing to require objecting health care entities protected by the Weldon Amendment to cover elective abortion. With this Notice, OCR requests that California inform OCR, within thirty days, whether California will continue to enforce its requirement that all health plans cover elective abortions, or whether it will agree to take corrective action and remedy the effect of its discriminatory conduct.

If, after 30 days, OCR does not receive sufficient assurance that California will come into compliance with federal law, OCR will forward the Notice of Violation and the evidence supporting OCR’s findings in this matter to the HHS funding components from which California receives funding for appropriate action under applicable grants and contracts regulations. This action may ultimately result in limitations on continued receipt of certain HHS funds.

This is not the first time OCR has found California to be in violation of federal conscience statutes. In January 2019, OCR found that California violated the Weldon and Coats-Snowe Amendments when it subjected pregnancy resource centers in the state to potential fines and discrimination for refusing to post notices referring for free or low-cost abortions.

“Once again, President Trump’s administration is delivering on his promise to protect human life and all Americans’ freedom of conscience,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. “Under President Trump, HHS has been vigorously enforcing the statutes Congress passed to protect Americans’ consciences and institutionalizing these protections within the department’s civil rights work.”

“No one in America should be forced to pay for or cover other people’s abortions,” said Roger Severino, Director of OCR. “We are putting California on notice that it must stop forcing people of good will to subsidize the taking of human life, not only because it’s the moral thing to do, but because it’s the law,” Severino concluded.

The article above was released by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Emphasis added.

1 Comment

  1. A BREAKTHROUGH IN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

    Governmental funding for abortion and contraception is unconstitutional which will be proven here as a matter of law. Yet to the contrary until now doing so is allegedly legitimized under prior holdings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Consequently, I need to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to grant me an oral argument pro se in order to answer the following 2 questions:
    1. “Whether my definition thereof here below upholds, whereas the Restoration of Freedom of Religion Act [hereinafter known as ‘RFRA’, added] denies, religious freedom because my definition is, but RFRA allegedly is, based on Sherbert v. Verner [374 US 398 (1963)].
    2. Whether any government official, elected or appointed, federal or state, who consented to fund with taxes abortion and/or contraception, the coverage thereof in group health insurance [“GHI”], Planned Parenthood and/or constructively the tax-exempt and/or tax-deductible status thereof must be removed ab initio from office for violating the federal First Amendment based on its words, ‘Congress shall pass no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion, added].’”
    At ¶’s A, B, C & D below are 4 necessary/sufficient arguments that prove why RFRA is based solely on a fallacy that had been planted in Sherbert in 1963, aff’d in Thomas v. Review Board [101 S.Ct. at 1431] in 1981 but overturned in Smith in 1990 on other grounds, yet in 1993 enacted into law by Congress as RFRA! But all the virgin holdings in Sherbert that I rely on pre- suppose 3 burdens on the free exercise exist as: (1) a coercion to violate religion in practice (2) a coercion to consent to a temptation to violate religion in practice and (3) a coercion to consent to a temptation to violate religion in principle only i.e. never in practice. Yet RFRA keeps burden “(3)” hidden even though the purpose for RFRA is ‘to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert’ [at 42 U.S.C. §2000bb(b)] which applies only to burden “(3)”, the yielding to which allegedly causes no sin6 yet doing so to burdens (1) &/or (2) does! And at exhibit A1 [i.e.
    101 S.Ct. at 1431] the High Court in Thomas declared: ‘It is true that, as in Sherbert, the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience’ Id. which is consistent to my explanation above! Mr. Brejcha, you’ll be proud presenting my litigation now ripe for judicial review not only for your defense, but by doing so will be the most important achievement of your legacy because as a result of your doing so will also cause an increase in, and a wave throughout the world promoting, religious freedom; against the war on the Unborn as well! Also, all pro-abortionists must leave Congress thus effectively freeing up money saved by doing so to build a border wall too!

    A BURDEN ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION © 2004 Lawrence R. Rosano

    “A burden on the free exercise of religion under the federal first amendment to the United States Constitution is created when a religious adherent is coerced to consent to a proposed temptation to violate religion in principle, only, in order to receive benefits and/or be eligible for employment, both of which are not offensive to religion, or else, be punished for not doing so by being denied the otherwise available benefits and/or employment in question. The intensity of this temptation is that much stronger when it is always available, instead of proposed, as above, indicated, and, if always available, consequently, the religious adherent is entitled the more to the religious freedom in question, accordingly. However, in both cases, the religious freedom is limited, only, by the government’s showing that the limitation or restriction on religious freedom is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest. Nevertheless, to the above indicated.” Cf. Rosano v. U.S., 9 Cl.Ct. 137, aff’d 800 F.2d 1226, cert. den. 480 US 907. contrary, the government is prohibited from doing so, whenever the proposed temptation to as
    violate religion is in practice, instead of in principle, only, regardless, whatever the intensity is”.

    THIS 1963 FALLACY IS THE WRENCH IN THE GEARS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

    The U.S. Supreme Court planted this fallacy in Sherbert and 18 years later affirmed that fallacy in Thomas v. Review Board [supra at 1431] at exhibit A1 in the 2nd column that literally had upheld as follows: ‘The ruling [disqualifying Mrs. Sherbert from benefits because of her refusal to work on Saturday in violation of her faith]’ which in plain language means this: Mrs. Sherbert was disqualified from benefits because she refused to violate her religion in practice.
    A. FIRED NOT FOR JUST CAUSE SHE’S OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE, NOT “DISQUALIF[-IED]”
    In context the “benefits” Id. above are Unemployment Compensation Benefits [“UCB”’]. Fired from her job “because of her refusal to work on Saturday in violation of her faith” Id. 1431 Mrs. Sherbert became otherwise eligible, not disqualified, to receive UCB, pending her 2nd and final consent to accept the state’s temptation upon her “to work on Saturday in violation of her faith” Id. 1431 yet in reality in principle only i.e. never in practice since the UCB board had been unable to obligate her in the first place because it had already ruled her “fired without just cause” thereby unavailable to do so in practice. Conclusively the U.S. Supreme Court held “It is true that, as in Sherbert, the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience.” Id. 1431!
    B. EXPOSED UNDER THE SUMMA THEOLOGICA BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
    St. Thomas Aquinas in his The Summa Theologica at Qu. 17 Art. 3 Whether falsity is in the intellect? teaches: By ‘composing a definition of parts which are mutually exclusive’, ‘Everyone who is deceived, understands not that in which he is deceived.’ In 1963 as a conclusion the High Court falsely held: Mrs. Sherbert was disqualified from UCB as an UNEMPLOYED applicant because she refused to violate her religion in practice as an EMPLOYEE thereby defining ‘parts which are mutually exclusive’ Id. Qu 17 Art 3. Whereas as a condition for – she was otherwise eligible, not disqualified, to receive – UCB for her refusal to do so.
    C. THE DOCTRINE OF NON-CONTRADICTION IN CONTEXT EXPLAINED AT EXHIBIT A1
    The underlined fallacy between ‘1963’ & ‘A.’ above is also included in the top half of the 2nd column [col] at exhibit A1 [i.e. page 1431 in Thomas v. Review Board, 101 S.Ct.] which is a pas- sage contrary to the same in the bottom half of the same 2nd col on the same page which is this:
    ‘A similar argument was made and rejected in Sherbert, however. It is true [emphasis, added] that, as in Sherbert, the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience [emphasis, added]. But “this is only the beginning, not the end, of our inquiry.” 374 U.S., at 403-404. In a variety of ways we have said that “[a] regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it burdens the free exercise of religion [in principle only, added].”’ Id., 1431. In sum at exhibit A1 under the doctrine of non-contradiction in the upper half of the 2nd col exposes this fallacy as opposed to the contrary in the lower half of the 2nd col where the U.S. Supreme Court held, ‘It is true that, the .. law [d]oes not compel a violation of conscience’ Id.!
    D. EXPOSED UNDER THE DOUBLE NEGATIVES’ RULE EXPLAINED AT EXHIBIT A2
    Applying the double negatives’ rule to this fallacy above follows: Then, Mrs. Sherbert was qualified for UCB because she worked on Saturday violating her faith. But, on 2nd glance, since employed applicants for, are disqualified to receive, UCB in turn this proves it’s a fallacy!”

Comments are closed.