Federal Judge Issues a Reprieve for Ten year Old Sarah Murnaghan but the Dark Cloud of Death Hovers Over ObamaCare

The implications of this case are stunning, especially in light of where we are headed as a Nation.

The loving parents of this girl filed the emergency motion under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. Fortunately they found lawyers willing to help them. The likelihood of this happening after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act grows smaller given the magnitude of cases which will result. U.S. District Court Judge Michael M. Baylson granted the requested extraordinary relief and ordered the full matter to be heard on June 14, 2013 at 10:00 in the morning. This is far from over.

P>WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - A Federal Judge for the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ordered Kathleen Sebelius, the Human Services Secretary, to move ten year old Sarah Murnaghan to the adult lung transplant list.

Thank God! That means this beautiful little girl might live.It means her parents might have her as a gift, to love and to raise.

This ten year old girl from Pennsylvania gained appropriate national attention because she will die unless she receives a lung transplant. She is dying of cystic fibrosis.

The Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services refused to alter the application of the federal rules. The Federal Government was simply willing to let her die. This is an omen of what lies ahead as the Affordable care Act becomes a reality.

The Order of the Federal Court can be read in its entirety here. It is by no means the end of this  matter of life and death.

The loving parents of this girl filed the emergency motion under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. Fortunately they found lawyers willing to help them. The likelihood of this happening after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act grows smaller given the magnitude of cases which will result.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael M. Baylson granted the requested extraordinary relief and ordered the full matter to be heard on June 14, 2013 at 10:00 in the morning. This is far from over.

The implications of this case are stunning, especially in light of where we are headed as a Nation. We will soon embark upon the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Federal Regime will make these kinds of decisions routinely.

I have written extensively about the egregious implications of the Affordable Care Act as it relates to the HHS mandate which requires all employers, including Catholic and other religious employers, to cover sterilization, abortion inducing drugs, and contraception in their health care plans.

The alleged exemption offered to religious employers did not cover hospitals, universities, soup kitchens, outreaches to the poor and many other vital expressions of our Catholic faith and mission.

The accommodation which followed was a fraud, a shell game, which accomplished nothing. When the Mandate was recorded in the Federal Register, nothing had changed.

Catholics, like many other Christians and people of faith, know that that the Gospel of Jesus Christ demands a response which goes beyond the walls of our Church buildings. We are our brother and sister's keeper. We do not reach out to people in need because they are Catholic. We reach out to people in need because we are Catholic.

We will not comply with the unjust mandate from HHS.  

The Supreme Court decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, not under the Commerce Clause, but as an exercise of Congress' power to tax, shocked the press, confused the Nation and sent lawyers like me to read, re-read, analyze and parse the lengthy and complex opinion.

The dense, poorly reasoned opinion was authored for a 5- 4majority by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissented. The opinion upheld the individual mandate of the Act. I believed then and, even more now, they were wrong.

The Supreme Court ruled that the mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it did not end there. They upheld the Act as a tax. 

Ironically, the Obama Administration initially argued that the penalty for non-compliance with the Affordable Care Act's mandate to purchase insurance was not a tax. However, they changed their position as the argument unfolded in the Chambers of the Court.

Like thousands of lawyers around the Nation, I digested this complex, dense and surprising opinion. I concluded it was a disaster on many fronts. The order of U.S. District Court Judge Michael M. Baylson today confirms my worst fears.

Not only does the federalizing of the delivery of health care services violate the principle of subsidiarity, it unleashes this kind of potential for evil every time the Federal Regime decides a life is not worth saving. This is an administration which does not recognize that children in the first home of the whole human race are our neighbors and have a Fundamental Human Right to Life.

This is an administration which apparently does not think an older person should receive a pacemaker! The President was clear on this in a comment he made on health care last year. Do we want the panels appointed by this regime making end of life care decisions?

My God, what have we done? What have we unleashed, thinking that we were expanding health care coverage, a noteworthy desire, have we inadvertently given ground to the culture of death?

Will we be forced to run to Federal Court every time a representative of the Regime decides that health care services are not warranted because, in their utilitarian analysis, the particular life in question is deemed by them to be less valuable than another? Are there enough lawyers, and enough sane federal judges, to hold back the onslaught?

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online