BREAKING: In a nationwide ruling against a Trump Administration religious conscience rule, a federal district Court today ruled against the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Court sided with Pennsylvania and New Jersey in their years-long effort to force the Little Sisters of the…

— BECKET (@becketfund) August 13, 2025

The little sisters of the poor have apparently lost their decade long case trying to not pay for abortions. Id cannot imagine the trump admin forcing these payments.

Who are "The Little Sisters of the Poor"?

And why should they have to pay for abortions?

BigRobSA said:

---

Who are "The Little Sisters of the Poor"?

And why should they have to pay for abortions?

---

Catholic non-profit organization. They are being forced to provided contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health insurance plans. The core of the dispute is whether the government can require religious organizations to offer such coverage, even if it violates their deeply held religious belief.

BigRobSA said:

---

Who are "The Little Sisters of the Poor"?

And why should they have to pay for abortions?

---

Nuns.

This is kinda like forcing a Halal restaurant to sell bacon, in my opinion.

I'm guessing this will result in them dropping all insurance coverage for their employees

The left is evil.

Sharpshooter said:

---

The left is evil.

---

Absolutely

AgBQ-00 said:

---

I'm guessing this will result in them dropping all insurance coverage for their employees

---

They will appeal and win

I'd drop Healthcare coverage if this ruling doesnt get overturned or make the policy 100% employee purchased.

And yet if a Muslim organization saying it violated their religion, Dems would never attempt to force it on them

they will appeal and win OP conveniently left that out in the original post.

Apollo79 said:

---

they will appeal and win OP conveniently left that out in the original post.

---

Wow! You really got him!


Hopefully, they do win on appeal. But it shouldn't even come to that!!


Obama judge. Shocking, I know.

Uh, what are you going on about?

They have been fighting this in court since 2017. Why are they still going to need to defend themselves over a decade?

The process is the punishment

Want to murder your baby? Pay for it yourself. Insurance should not be involved in any of this.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

I'm guessing this will result in them dropping all insurance coverage for their employees

---

I sure hope so.

Im Gipper said:

---

Apollo79 said:

---

they will appeal and win OP conveniently left that out in the original post.

---

Wow! You really got him!


Hopefully, they do win on appeal. But it shouldn't even come to that!!


Obama judge. Shocking, I know.

---

Cool thanks Bud

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Uh, what are you going on about?

They have been fighting this in court since 2017. Why are they still going to need to defend themselves over a decade?

The process is the punishment

---

what am I talking about? I read the article they will appeal and win your OP makes it seems like its final. hth bud

This gets overturned in 2 seconds by SCOTUS

4 said:

---

This gets overturned in 2 seconds by SCOTUS

---

Problem is how long does it take to get there two years?

Make no mistake, this is about forcing them to pay for Abortion. Contraceptives are dirt cheap. They are thrown in there solely to make the LSOTP policy sound unreasonable.

BigRobSA said:

---

Who are "The Little Sisters of the Poor"?

And why should they have to pay for abortions?

---

We played them in a non-conference game in 2004. Almost lost.

Even worse. It's like forcing a halal restaurant to stock bacon that they'll never sell.

samurai_science said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

I'm guessing this will result in them dropping all insurance coverage for their employees

---

They will appeal and win

---

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

I have some stock picks to make,
.
Yes, the article says they will appeal. Why are you so confident they will win?

Very confused. I've only ever known The Little Sisters of the Poor as the Big12 Conference and then contemplate if we should go back so we have a shot at the playoff. Maybe.

BusterAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Who are "The Little Sisters of the Poor"?

And why should they have to pay for abortions?

---

Nuns.

This is kinda like forcing a Halal restaurant to sell bacon, in my opinion.

---

As it is in mine.

I hope they win, on appeal, or just say "Fornicate it!" and drop insurance altogether.

This is a dumb ruling, based upon "mUh FeElZ!" .

Nothing more sacred to the dems and the left than baby murder. It's their reason for being.

I believe this suit was not brought by a 'radical' version of the Dem party, either, but by Gov. Shapiro in PA. This is just who the democrats are at this point. Note how absurd it is to claim the exemption granted the nuns was 'arbitrary and capricious:'

Quote:

---

Supreme Court Victory Undone by Procedural Arguments
Here's what makes this ruling particularly galling for religious liberty advocates: This is the exact same case where the Little Sisters won a decisive 7-2 victory at the Supreme Court in 2020. The high court ruled that the Trump administration had proper authority to grant these religious exemptions and that the rules met all procedural requirements.
But Pennsylvania and New Jersey weren't willing to accept that outcome. Instead of dropping the case after their crushing Supreme Court defeat, the states pivoted to new arguments. They "revitalized their cutting-floor arguments that they chose not to pursue at the Supreme Court last time and brought them in the district court," according to Diana Thomson, a senior attorney with Becket, the legal advocacy group representing the Little Sisters.
The district court's 55-page ruling completely sidesteps the constitutional and religious liberty questions the Supreme Court addressed, focusing instead on narrow claims that the agencies acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when crafting the exemptions. Judge Beetlestone waited five years to issue this decisionwithout even holding a hearing on the constitutional issues at stake.

---

Also, obligatory; Wendy Beetlestone is an Obama Judge.

Quote:

---

Judge Beetlestone's ruling essentially accuses the Trump agencies of solving the wrong problem. She argues there was no "rational connection" between the problem the agencies identified (RFRA conflicts) and the solution they chose (broad exemptions).

The court found that because the previous accommodation process was supposedly adequate for most religious objectors, the Trump administration went too far by exempting "all employers with objections to the mandate, even if the accommodation met their religious needs." In other words, the agencies exempted employers who supposedly had no religious objection to the status quo.

The judge also criticized the inclusion of publicly traded companies in the religious exemption, noting that the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby suggested such companies were "unlikely, if ever" to maintain sincere religious objections. She found it "arbitrary" for agencies to agree with this assessment while simultaneously extending exemptions to publicly traded corporations.

Perhaps most significantly, the court ruled that the agencies failed to properly justify their change in position regarding contraception's safety and effectiveness. The Trump agencies had cited studies raising questions about certain contraceptive methods, but Judge Beetlestone found this analysis insufficient to justify departing from previous conclusions that contraception was safe and effective.

---

As the left complains about the costs of any single thing Trump does, even including his building a ball room at the White House on his own dime, keep in mind some of the 'most moderate' Dems have had no problem forcing 12 years of litigation on the little sisters of the poor to make them pay for abortion coverage.

So bold, so compassionate. Never, ever vote for a Democrat.

Verbal manipulation by lawyers and judges is an end in itself. Always done to enrich lawyers and judges. The entire court system is designed to ensure that outcome. I would have to put 99.9% of lawyers at the very top of the greed scale, if there is one.

Pretty obvious their federal district would side against deeply held christian beliefs. The endgame here is the supreme court. Sad to see that it always takes a supreme court ruling to get blue states to uphold the law against conservative beliefs.

Any legal eagles want to take a stab at what supreme court precedence would change here? I thought Hobby Lobby settled this.

Apollo79 said:

---

they will appeal and win OP conveniently left that out in the original post.

---

Did the news article say they will win on appeal?

Bigger question...why should they have to appeal in the first place? This should have ended at the circuit level. This is such a blatant violation of their first amendment rights. But you want to criticize the reporting of this round of judicial decision instead of the judicial decision itself, which you know was wrong.

Are they demanding compensation for bad habits?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

I'm guessing this will result in them dropping all insurance coverage for their employees

---

They will appeal and win

---

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

I have some stock picks to make,
.
Yes, the article says they will appeal. Why are you so confident they will win?

---

They won once already

In other news, Little Sisters of the Poor stop providing healthcare coverage for their employees.

Demonic tyranny

IIIHorn said:

---

Are they demanding compensation for bad habits?

---

Underappreciated post.