(WND News Center)—Little Sisters of the Poor is a Catholic church organization that was targeted by Barack Obama’s schemes in Obamacare, in which he tried to force the Christian group to promotion contraception and abortions for employees.
They fought, for years, and won at the Supreme Court. And they won a second time, too.
But two states are defying that precedent, STILL, a decade and a half after the dispute was brought by the Democrat ex-president, and the courts are being asked once again to halt the harassment.
It is Becket that has confirmed the Little Sisters once again are asking a federal appeals court to block “a nationwide ruling that rejected their protection from the federal government’s contraceptive mandate.”
“The fourteen-year legal crusade against the Little Sisters has been needless, grotesque, and un-American,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters. “The states have no business trying to take away the Little Sisters’ federal civil rights. The Third Circuit should toss the states’ lawsuit into the dustbin of history and uphold the protection the Little Sisters already won at the Supreme Court…twice.”
“Fourteen years ago, the federal Department of Health and Human Services issued a federal mandate as part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). This mandate requires employers to provide contraceptives like the week-after pill in their health insurance plans, including some that can cause abortion. The original mandate exempted plans covering tens of millions of people for administrative convenience, but did not provide a religious exemption for groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns who have served the elderly poor for nearly 200 years. After the Little Sisters won protection against the federal government at the Supreme Court in 2016 and in a new federal rule in 2017, Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued to take away that protection,” Becket explained.
It was the high court in 2016 that said the government could not force the contraceptive mandate, and Washington responded with a rule that exempted groups like the Little Sisters.
However, abortion promoters in more than a dozen state governments in multiple cases immediately sued, as they intended to “strong-arm” the group “into either providing contraceptives or paying tens of millions in fines.”
A second trip to the Supreme Court resulted in a second victory for the Little Sisters.
However, Pennsylvania and New Jersey have refused to drop their efforts to take away the Little Sisters’ protection in the lower courts.
“For nearly 200 years, our order has welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes as we would welcome Christ Himself,” explained Little Sisters spokeswoman Mother Loraine Marie Maguire. “It is painful that we have spent more than a decade defending that mission in court. We simply want to continue our work without being forced to violate our faith, and we pray Pennsylvania and New Jersey will end this needless harassment.”
A lower court sided with the states’ anti-Christian agenda earlier this year, pushing the religious organization into the federal appeals court docket again.
In a statement to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the lawyers explained, on behalf of the Little Sisters, “For more than a decade, various government actors have tried to force religious objectors to obey a federal contraceptive mandate. As many courts have found—and as the federal government now openly admits— such coercion violates a federal civil rights law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That is why the federal government stopped requiring religious objectors to comply with the federal contraceptive mandate in 2017. Indeed, presidential administrations of both political parties have now followed this course. Yet the Appellee States maintain that state governments somehow have an interest in forcing the federal government to force religious objectors to comply with the federal contraceptive mandate—even though the federal government need not have any contraceptive mandate at all, and even though the states themselves have chosen not to have such mandates of their own.”
The briefing continued, “When this case was last at the Supreme Court, seven Justices roundly rejected the States’ leading statutory arguments. The court explained that the federal agencies have ‘virtually unbridled discretion’ about what services to include in the contraceptive mandate and what exemptions to create. The court said that its decisions had ‘made it abundantly clear that, under RFRA, the departments must accept the sincerely held complicity-based objections of religious entities.’ The court emphasized that the agencies were not free to tell religious objectors that ‘the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find morally wrong is simply too attenuated.’ And the court said it had already ‘directed the parties … to ‘accommodate’ the free exercise rights of those with complicity-based objections to the self-certification accommodation.’ Nevertheless, after a four-year stay, and while adjudicating the states’ leftover arguments, the district court again misinterpreted RFRA so badly that it claimed the religious exemption rule was not even ‘rationally connected’ to solving the RFRA problem.
“Worse still, the district court’s analysis purports to revive—and treat as circuit precedent— RFRA analysis from Geneva College that has twice been vacated by the Supreme Court, was based on since-disproven factual claims, and is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s most recent opinion in this case. The district court’s statutory errors also lead inexorably to a constitutional conflict, because the original contraceptive mandate cannot constitutionally be re-imposed. The mandate is not a generally applicable law under the court’s recent decisions in Fulton and Tandon. The mandate’s discrimination among religious objectors is flatly unconstitutional under the court’s recent unanimous decision in Catholic Charities Bureau. And the complete lack of standards or principles to constrain agency discretion—what the Supreme Court has already recognized as ‘virtually unbridled discretion’—violates the non-delegation doctrine. These constitutional infirmities mean that the states’ claims are not redressable, because no court could lawfully provide the requested relief. Nor have the states offered any evidence that they have been harmed.”
* * *
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.