As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Cato on Contraception Mandate: 'We Should All be Exempt'

As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane of Cato explains why President Barack Obama’s proposed compromise to exempt church-related institutions misses the point:

Our nation is divided on social issues. The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don't have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society.

The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable…[more]

February 10, 2012 • 04:52 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Home Jester's Courtroom No Talking Turkey in This Court
No Talking Turkey in This Court Print
Wednesday, December 09 2009

Following a four-year legal battle, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently ruled that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over the slaughter practices for poultry.

The lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco just days before Thanksgiving in 2005 by the Humane Society of the United States, contended that the USDA’s position that the Humane Method of Slaughter Act of 1958 did not apply to poultry leads to shoddy slaughter practices and jeopardizes food safety.  In the lawsuit, the Humane Society alleged that without legal protection, poultry is subject to “extreme and unnecessary pain and suffering.”

Calling the lawsuit “unnecessarily distracting,” Joel Brandenberger, president of the National Turkey Federation, added, “They’re trying to create an issue where there is none. They’re out trying to create a false impression of what’s going on in the industry.”

Following oral arguments, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the USDA, saying it was not Congress’ intent to include poultry in the phrase “other livestock” contained in a half-century old congressional act on humane slaughter.  On appeal, a three-judge panel decided that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, vacated the lower court’s ruling and sent it back to be dismissed.

Jonathan Lovvorn, an attorney for the Humane Society said a decision whether to appeal has not been made.

—Source:  The Los Angeles Times

Question of the Week   
Where does the United States rank in The Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Economic Freedom?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Someone needs to ask Mr. Obama how an increasingly impoverished nation, limping along on food stamps and housing subsidies, is going to pay for the existing beneficiaries, along with 77 million Baby Boomers set to retire in the next 25 years. A president who has impaired the vibrancy of the private sector so badly has long since forfeited the moral high ground."…[more]
 
 
—Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
— Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the Obama administration support Israel in a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?