Overcomming HHS Mandate Accommodation

       On February 10, 2012, responding to pressure from the Roman Catholic Church [RCC] not to pay for that portion of its “Employer’s Share” of group health insurance [GHI] plan premiums which goes to pay for coverage of contraception, defined in 2010 as including abortifacients, and also sterilization, Obama announced his religious conscientious objector accommodation to the RCC which, on the one hand, exempted the RCC from having to pay that portion of its “Employer’s Share” of GHI plan premiums which went to pay for this religiously offensive coverage in question, yet on the other hand, nevertheless, all RCC Employees' GHI plan members would still have available to them this religiously offensive coverage in question, even without a copay!

          Yet by reason that religiously offensive portion of GHI plan premiums will now not only come out of the “RCC’s Share” – which to the contrary proves Obama a liar by alleging his accommodation protects RCC religious freedom - but in addition this GHI premium increase would come out of the “Employee’s Share” of GHI plan premium costs as well for all non-offensive to religion GHI coverage in order to compensate for the difference. Who is Obama kidding by claiming that the GHI Company will pay for it? Yet on second glance, on the one hand on its face he is correct, although on the other hand, Obama is violating John 7:24, which states: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment”.

           Even though the following has never been considered before by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB], nevertheless, all Prolife RCC Employees' GHI plan members are still coerced to consent to an always available temptation to violate religion in practice in order to become eligible to receive all non-offensive to religion GHI benefits which is a clear violation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause under my breakthrough in religious freedom which is explained elsewhere. Moreover, this religiously offensive condition of employment existed and still exists no matter whether the GHI plan is sponsored by the RCC or not. As an ecumenical effort, by coincidence, no less, all non-RCC employed Prolife GHI plan members are similarly situated as well. In addition, under these circumstances, this violation of official Catholic Church teaching conditions a Christian to accept the liecity or lawfulness of contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization "in practice" which are intrinsically evil, which even if merely "in principle" is a violation of ¶22 of the Document on Procured Abortion.  In fact, my definition thereof creates ab initio a cause of action against the United States and all State Governments for including coverage for abortion, contraception and/or sterilization in its Employees' GHI. Although current case law appears on its face to make constitutional such Anti-life GHI plans, nevertheless, to the contrary, my breakthrough in religious freedom based solely on Sherbert v Verner proves conclusively as a matter of law it is not.

              Moreover, my reliance on Sherbert v. Verner, based on federal law no less, is confirmed by the California Supreme Court on March 1, 2004 holding constitutional the Women's Contraceptive Equity Act which, in turn, made constitutional contraption coverage in GHI, even if sponsored by the RCC.

In addition, State Courts are fully competent to decide federal questions in this situation, pursuant to the U. S. Supreme Court in Doran v. Salem Inn., ___ US ____ (1975). Consequently, if successful in my appeal to the Appellate Term in Brooklyn, N.Y., in People v. Rosano, 2010-01868 CRD, which argues that my definition of a burden on the free exercise of religion or what I call “breakthrough in religious freedom”, is upheld as constitutional, then, I will soon be eligible to argue Pro Se my justification defense in Court in order to make unconstitutional abortion and contraception as a matter of law. In 1985, the U. S. Claims Court in Rosano v. United States (9 Cl.Ct. 137) held essentially that if I could prove GHI which includes religiously offensive but mandatory coverage for abortion, contraception and sterilization is unconstitutional, then, consequently, I would have jurisdiction in federal court to decide not only the constitutionality of abortion and contraception, but of homosexuality, euthanasia and even prayer in schools.
       Based on my 30 years legal research under the doctrine of res judicata, Sherbert v. Verner controls whether the HHS mandate violated the Federal First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. In turn, my breakthrough in religious freedom when applied renders Obama's religious conscientious objector accommodation unconstitutional under the Federal First Amendment.

      Conclusively, the HHS mandate is not only unconstitutional, but Sherbert v. Verner is a litmus test to bounce Obama and all who consented to do so out of Federal employment or Government Office, as well. Consequently, therefore, the HHS mandate must become unconstitutional, whether or not the U. S. Supreme Court holds to the contrary in June, 2012 when that decision is expected.