The HHS Mandate Takes It on the Chin Again With Ruling For The Founder of Domino’s Pizza UPDATED

Perhaps the Administration will scuttle this ridiculous rule out of embarrassment alone. I mean, the phony war on women trope worked well enough to secure reelection, but in reality, it isn’t holding up. Perhaps a miracle, much like the pending deal on the fiscal cliff, is imminent.

Here are the details from the Thomas More Law Center,

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that yesterday (12/30/12) Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff of the Eastern District of Michigan, granted its Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order of the HHS Mandate.  The motion was filed on behalf of Tom Monaghan.

Judge Zatkoff’s ruling effectively halts enforcement of the HHS mandate against Monaghan and his property management company, Domino’s Farms Corporation of which he is the owner and sole shareholder. Domino’s Farms Corporation manages an Office Complex owned by Monaghan and is not to be confused with Domino’s Pizza.  Monaghan sold the Pizza company in 1998 and has no active affiliation with it at this time.

The HHS mandate refers to regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services that forces employers, regardless of their religious convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.

Erin Mersino, TMLC’s lead counsel on the case filed the original complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive relief on December 14, 2012.  On December 21, 2012,   Mersino filed the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Judge Zatkoff issued his ruling amid a flurry of briefs and supplemental pleadings over the Christmas Holiday between Erin Mersino and the Government’s attorney.  The need for quick resolution was clear—on January 1, 2013, Tom Monaghan would be forced to choose between violating his religious beliefs and violating federal law.

For purposes of the emergency Motion, Judge Zatkoff focused only on the claim brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  He held he did not need to engage in a separate discussion of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional right to the Free Exercise of Religion since both theories seek to protect the same liberty interest—the free practice of one’s religion.

The Government is expected to appeal Judge Zatkoff’s ruling.

Source.

Click here to read Judge Zatkoff’s entire opinion.

Joyeux Noël, and Happy New Year!

BREAKING! Another company wins relief on New Years Eve.

  • Jem

    Thanks be to God for a courageous judge, for a company willing to fight this unjust law, and for attorneys willing to work for little to take it to court.

  • francis manion

    Late yesterday, a federal court in St. Louis granted a temporary restraining order against the HHS mandate in favor of yet another for-profit business — Sharpe Holdings, Inc., a Missouri dairy farming, creamery and cheese making company. For those keeping score at home, to date 9 for-profit companies have obtained injunctions against the mandate, 3 have been denied.

    • Frank Weathers

      Thanks counselor!

  • Captain America

    The HHS Mandate is something EVERY Catholic in America—every Christian, too—must take seriously and fight against.

    • Frank Weathers

      I would argue that every freedom-loving person, regardless of their creed (or lack of one), should not support the HHS Mandate. And the it shatters the idea of a separation between Church and State. But I repeat myself. ;)

      • Clare Krishan

        indeed – any Aristotolean humanist who defends ends, means and objective property of real things should be alarmed. Unlike the British socialist system, this US attempt to introduce government healthcare is actually fascist: the governing powers want to coerce you, not to pay a tax to the state to administer a public service, but rather coerce expropriation on property owners to a favored form of commerce (in this case so called reproductive healthcare, but if this precedent is allowed to stand the governing powers can coerce partipation in any other favored form of commerce, and conforming statist enterprises become agents of civic force contrary to the natural law, private property is expropriated to further certain goals, not those freely chosen by individuals, but the aggregate of the centrally planned “hive”)

  • MT

    The HHS Mandate is indeed a violation of religious liberty. It seems to me that the entire notion of any governmental takeover of health care, such as Obamacare, is itself a violation of even more than religious liberty. It’s obvious that a Catholic could not support the HHS Mandate. It seems obvious to me that it is also impossible for a Catholic to support Obamacare itself. Any governmental takeover of health care in a pluralistic society will necessarily include mandates that violate Catholic and universal principles fundamentally. I won’t list here all the ways that such a massive takeover upsets the proper ordering of how and from where health care is delivered, and I won’t list the violations of basic rights and universal truths that it demands, but when these things are added to the fact that it smashes religious liberty and fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the State — and does all this in one monstrous package — it should be obvious to any educated Catholic that the whole notion of government-run health care is flawed at its very core. Obamacare will do what all violations of truth do — it will crush freedom by introducing more disorder into society, and it will ultimately expand the culture of death.