Campaign for Working Families
As Chief Justice John Roberts reminded us in upholding Obamacare two years ago, it is always risky to try to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case based on oral arguments. But multiple reports suggest a clear majority of justices today were hostile to the Obama Administration's defense of Obamacare's contraception mandate, which would force religious business owners to pay for abortion-inducing drugs and sterilizations.
From CNN came this headline: "Court Majority Harshly Critical Of Obamacare Contraception Mandate." And there was this headline from the Los Angeles Times: "Justices Sound Ready To Reject Contraceptives Mandate Under Obamacare."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote in major cases, seemed particularly critical. At one point, Kennedy said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, "Your reasoning would permit requiring profit-making corporations to pay for abortions."
There are reports that even liberal Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to be searching for a way to roll back the mandate, perhaps resulting in a 6-to-3 ruling. A decision is not expected until summer.
Please keep this decision and the justices in your prayers. And do not forget the Hobby Lobby case when discussing Obamacare with your friends and relatives. If they lose this case, Hobby Lobby's owners are facing fines in excess of $1 million a day if they refuse to violate their deeply held values.
The left is constantly assaulting our fundamental freedoms. Men and women of faith cannot remain on the sidelines in America's culture war. Religious liberty hangs in the balance.
Taxpayer-Funded Subsidies Challenged, Too
Meanwhile, there was another high-profile challenge to Obamacare heard today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In that case, the plaintiffs were challenging the Obama Administration for refusing to follow the plain language of the law.
As written by the Democrat Congress in 2010, Obamacare does not allow subsidies for the federal exchange. The subsidies were offered as an incentive for states to set up their own exchanges. But since most states opted against doing so, the outcome of this case could have major ramifications. You can read more here.