Judge says Affordable Care Act does not Violate Religious Freedom

A Democrat-appointed judge held that religious objections to the nation’s so-called Obamacare law are not valid, and that the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States of America allows the government to regulate thought. The astounding ruling came from U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler out of Washington D.C.

Providing the fifth judicial opinion concerning government-controlled healthcare and enunciating unprecedented “Big Brother” powers of the Federal Government, the judge highlights what some Americans consider as a growing problem of judges acting out their own political philosophies rather than interpreting laws in the light of the constitution.

Reporting on the judge’s ruling, American Spectator’s Philip Klein (http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/22/federal-judge-rules-congress-c) observes that the judge has gone to unprecedented levels of constitutional interpretation by saying that the government can use the commerce clause to control mental activity, meaning that religious objections to Obamacare are unconstitutional.

About the lawsuit

According to Minnesota Daily (http://www.mndaily.com/blogs/newsstand/2011/02/23/another-obamacare-lawsuit-thrown-out), the challenge brought before the court proposed that Obamacare violates the constitutional protection of religious freedom because some people believe that their health depends solely upon God’s will. Such a religious belief violates the constitution because it interferes with interstate commerce, the federal judge suggested.

However, since some people might choose to obtain health insurance while others might choose not to acquire it, the choice is an action and therefore can be regulated by the government. The ruling, with enormous implications on basic human rights and liberties, places the government in the God-like position to govern what people think.

Although the ruling by Judge Kessler threw out a lawsuit filed by the Christian legal group, American Center for Law and Justice, she simultaneously reserved that a decision by the United States Supreme Court will likely be required to provide the final word on the matter.

The plaintiffs

Susan Seven-Sky, Charles Lee, and Margaret Mead, all Christians, said that their commitment to faith in God for their health is violated by the Obamacare law which would force them to acquire health insurance. The possession of a so-called “backup plan” such as health insurance was against their conscience and their religious beliefs, those plaintiffs said.

Two other plaintiffs bringing the case against the government, Kenneth Ruffo and Gina Rodriguez contended that Obamacare violates their rights because it forbids them to pay for the type of holistic health care that supports their particular beliefs.

The judge suggested that the plaintiffs all have the option to pay the penalties for violating the Obamacare law and therefore should not feel like they must buy health insurance, the Associated Press says (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i2bDla6fxsaAY0mRk4wxEzUUUZlQ?docId=e152a042e6f34e5eaed5b3a565db4d34).