Missoulian: Challenge
to Obamacare on contraceptives rejected
13-5368 Priests For Life v. HHS
“The contraceptive coverage opt-out mechanism substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ religious exercise, Plaintiffs contend, by failing to extricate them from providing, paying for, or facilitating access to contraception. In particular, they assert that the notice they submit in requesting accommodation is a “trigger” that activates substitute coverage, and that the government will “hijack” their health plans and use them as “conduits” for providing contraceptive coverage to their employees and students. Plaintiffs dispute that the government has any compelling interest in obliging them to give notice of their wish to take advantage of the accommodation. And they argue that the government has failed to show that the notice requirement is the least restrictive means of serving any such interest.
13-5368 Priests For Life v. HHS
“The contraceptive coverage opt-out mechanism substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ religious exercise, Plaintiffs contend, by failing to extricate them from providing, paying for, or facilitating access to contraception. In particular, they assert that the notice they submit in requesting accommodation is a “trigger” that activates substitute coverage, and that the government will “hijack” their health plans and use them as “conduits” for providing contraceptive coverage to their employees and students. Plaintiffs dispute that the government has any compelling interest in obliging them to give notice of their wish to take advantage of the accommodation. And they argue that the government has failed to show that the notice requirement is the least restrictive means of serving any such interest.
…The accommodation requires as little as it can from the
objectors while still serving the government’s compelling interests. Because
the regulatory opt-out mechanism is the least restrictive means to serve compelling
governmental interests, it is fully consistent with Plaintiffs’ rights under
RFRA. We also find no merit in Plaintiffs’ additional claims under the Constitution
and the Administrative Procedure Act.”
H.R.2
- American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act
“American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act - Division A: Energy and Commerce - Title I: Modernizing Infrastructure - Subtitle A: Northern Route Approval - Northern Route Approval Act - (Sec. 103) Declares that a presidential permit shall not be required for the pipeline described in the application filed on May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. to the Department of State for the Keystone XL pipeline, including the Nebraska reroute evaluated in the Final Evaluation Report issued by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in January 2013 and approved by the Nebraska governor.”
“American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act - Division A: Energy and Commerce - Title I: Modernizing Infrastructure - Subtitle A: Northern Route Approval - Northern Route Approval Act - (Sec. 103) Declares that a presidential permit shall not be required for the pipeline described in the application filed on May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. to the Department of State for the Keystone XL pipeline, including the Nebraska reroute evaluated in the Final Evaluation Report issued by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in January 2013 and approved by the Nebraska governor.”
Missoulian: Ex-coal mine chief
joins small club: charged CEOs
Former Massey Energy CEO Indicted
“The indictment alleges that from about January 1, 2008, through about April 9, 2010, Blankenship conspired to commit and cause routine, willful violations of mandatory federal mine safety and health standards at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine, located in Raleigh County, West Virginia. The indictment alleges that during this same period of time, Blankenship was part of a conspiracy to impede and hinder federal mine safety officials from carrying out their duties at Upper Big Branch by providing advance warning of federal mine safety inspection activities, so their underground operations could conceal and cover up safety violations that they routinely committed.”
Former Massey Energy CEO Indicted
“The indictment alleges that from about January 1, 2008, through about April 9, 2010, Blankenship conspired to commit and cause routine, willful violations of mandatory federal mine safety and health standards at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine, located in Raleigh County, West Virginia. The indictment alleges that during this same period of time, Blankenship was part of a conspiracy to impede and hinder federal mine safety officials from carrying out their duties at Upper Big Branch by providing advance warning of federal mine safety inspection activities, so their underground operations could conceal and cover up safety violations that they routinely committed.”
