Xavier Becerra, President Biden&#8217;s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, testified to Congress during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday that he has &#8220;never sued any nuns,&#8221; despite California&#8217;s lawsuit against the Little Sisters of the Poor.
&#8220;I have never sued any nuns,&#8221; Becerra, who serves as California&#8217;s attorney general, told the Senate Finance Committee.
&#8220;I have taken on the federal government, but I&#8217;ve never sued any affiliation of nuns, and my actions have always been directed at the federal agencies because they have been trying to do things contrary to the law in California,&#8221; Becerra continued.
In 2017, Becerra filed a lawsuit on behalf of California against the Trump administration to reimpose the federal Obamacare mandate forcing health insurers to provide contraception coverage. Former President Obama&#8217;s HHS had imposed the contraception mandate on nearly all health insurers in 2011, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, who objected to it on religious grounds, opening themselves up to crippling government fines. The Little Sisters is a Catholic order of nuns who care for the elderly in need.
Becerra&#8217;s bid to finesse his record and whitewash it of a distasteful item like litigation against nuns is an attempt to exploit a distinction without an appreciable difference, namely that the Little Sisters of the Poor intervened in California&#8217;s case against the federal government in order to be able to fight it directly.
However, the very purpose of Becerra&#8217;s lawsuit was to force the Little Sisters and any other group with a religious exemption from providing contraception coverage to begin doing so.
In July, the Little Sisters won one of their cases at the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Trump administration rules allowing private employers with religious objections to eschew contraception coverage. Despite that victory, which should have closed the issue permanently, Becerra&#8217;s litigation against the Little Sisters remains ongoing.
Becerra also balked when asked about whether he would support any limits on abortion access should he be confirmed as HHS secretary.
&#8220;I respect those who take a particular view,&#8221; Becerra responded when asked by Senator Steve Daines, a Montana Republican, whether he would consider a ban on sex-selective abortions.
Likewise, Becerra declined to say whether he would support a ban on partial-birth abortion, a late-term abortion procedure that involves delivering the fetus and sometimes collapsing the infant&#8217;s skull. Partial-birth abortion was outlawed in the U.S. in 2003.
&#8220;What I can say is that I will make sure that I&#8217;m respecting the law on those issues,&#8221; Becerra responded.
His apparent refusal to consider any type of abortion restrictions is in line with Becerra&#8217;s history of rabid support for abortion access. He also served as prosecutor in the California criminal trial of David Daleiden, the pro-life activist who released undercover videos of Planned Parenthood executives discussing the procurement of fetal body parts. Becerra took over that case from now-Vice President Kamala Harris.
Becerra is also a favorite of the nation&#8217;s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, which has <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/C00314617/candidate-recipients/2014">donated</a> multiple times to Becerra&#8217;s campaigns and <a href="https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/pressroom/u-s-senate-must-confirm-xavier-becerra-as-hhs-secretary-without-delay">expressed</a> its full-throated support of his nomination to lead the powerful HHS.
The Finance Committee will vote on Becerra&#8217;s controversial nomination, after which he will face a vote in the full Senate.

Becerra

Becerra Tells Congress He ‘Never Sued Any Nuns’ Despite California’s Little Sisters Of The Poor Lawsuit

Abortion

California

Little Sisters of the Poor

Xavier Becerra

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) tweeted Monday that he and others are pledging to refuse to confirm Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden&#8217;s pick to helm the Health and Human Services administration, Xavier Becerra, over concerns he&#8217;ll use the office to target abortion opponents, similar to the way he targeted pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in California.
Biden announced Becerra&#8217;s new role Monday morning, defying expectations that he would appoint the former Congressman and current California Attorney General to a role within the Department of Justice.
Democrats, and particularly progressives, applauded the choice, noting that Becerra was an advocate for universal health coverage while in Congress and is recently on the record as a supporter for a Medicare-for-All-style health care system, though Joe Biden refused to make such a plan part of his campaign for president, citing a need, instead, for overhauling and refining parts of the Affordable Care Act.
Republicans, though, were quick to point out that Becerra signals a willingness on the part of a Biden administration to target abortion opponents directly. As attorney general, Becerra tried to force pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, which provide free prenatal care to expectant mothers but do not offer abortions, to provide potential patients with information about where they could obtain a free or low-cost abortion.
Cotton tweeted his pledge on Monday, saying, flatly that he would be &#8220;voting no, and Becerra should be rejected by the Senate.&#8221;
&#8220;Xavier Becerra spent his career attacking pro-life Americans and tried to force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortions,&#8221; Cotton wrote. &#8220;He&#8217;s been a disaster in California and he is unqualified to lead HHS. I’ll be voting no, and Becerra should be rejected by the Senate.&#8221;
The resulting legal case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where Becerra lost. The Supreme Court approved a preliminary injunction against the law, titled the &#8220;Reproductive FACT Act,&#8221; noting that requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to inform patients about abortion likely violated their First Amendment rights to both free speech and to free exercise.
At the time, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/supreme-court-crisis-pregnancy-centers-673183">Politico notes</a>, Becerra pledged to continue targeting abortion opponents.
&#8220;California Attorney General Xavier Becerra called the decision &#8216;unfortunate&#8217; and said the state will continue working to &#8216;ensure that Californians receive accurate information&#8217; about their health options. His office did not indicate how the state would respond,&#8221; the outlet noted. “&#8217;When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women — regardless of their economic background or zip code — deserve access to critical and non-biased information to make their own informed decisions,'&#8221; Becerra said.&#8221;
Pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List also pointed out that Becerra continued prosecuting David Daleidin, a journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood&#8217;s alleged involvement in &#8220;baby parts trafficking.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We call on Republican senators to stand firm &amp; stop this unacceptable nomination from going forward. (3/3)
&mdash; Susan B. Anthony List (@SBAList) <a href="https://twitter.com/SBAList/status/1335742190660759552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The appointment does seem in line with a potential Biden administration&#8217;s approach to pro-lifers and others who have a religious objection to promoting or providing abortion or contraception. Biden has promised to reinstate the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s contraception mandate, <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/biden-says-catholic-nuns-inspire-him-to-run-plans-to-sue-little-sisters-of-the-poor-12427">Catholic News Agency reports</a>, removing freedom of conscious protections that exempt religious employers from violating religious beliefs preventing them from providing birth control free of charge to employees.
&#8220;Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania on July 8, Biden said he was &#8216;disappointed&#8217; by the decision and promised to reinstate Obama-era policies requiring the sisters to ensure access to birth control in violation of their religious beliefs,&#8221; CNA reported.
“If I am elected I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the [Supreme Court’s 2014] Hobby Lobby ruling: providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions,” Biden said in July.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra Announces Results Of His Office’s Investigation Into Stephon Clark Killing

Republicans Say They Will Refuse To Confirm Biden HHS Pick Over Concern He’ll Target Pro-Lifers

Contraception

David Daleiden

Health and Human Services

On Wednesday, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden responded to the Supreme Court ruling that exempted religious organizations from covering their employees’ contraception. Biden said he was “disappointed in today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision” in the case Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, adding, “I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the Hobby Lobby ruling.”
Biden accused the Trump administration of continuing to “strip health care from women,” adding, “I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the Hobby Lobby ruling: providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions. The accommodation will allow women at these organizations to access contraceptive coverage, not through their employer-provided plan, but instead through their insurance company or a third-party administrator.”
As John McCormack of <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-says-he-would-rescind-exemption-for-little-sisters-of-poor/">National Review</a> pointed out, “The so-called ‘accommodation’ is the very policy that the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that provide care to the elderly, were fighting in court on the grounds that the policy still required them to violate their moral and religious convictions.”
McCormack cited columnist Charles Krauthammer <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-overreach--obamacare-vs-the-constitution/2012/02/16/gIQAmupcIR_story.html">writing</a> in 2012:
<blockquote>President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life. The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.</blockquote>
Biden’s full statement read:
<blockquote>Health care is a right that should not be dependent on race, gender, income or zip code. Yet as a result of today’s decision, countless women are at risk of losing access to affordable, preventive care.
I am disappointed in today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that will make it easier for the  Trump-Pence Administration to continue to strip health care from women – attempting to carve out broad exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s commitment to giving all women free access to recommended contraception.
As a result of the Affordable Care Act, more than 60 million women – including at least 32 million women of color – gained access to this preventative health care. The Obama-Biden Administration did this while also providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions.
As disappointing as the Supreme Court’s ruling is, there is a clear path to fixing it:  electing a new President who will end Donald Trump’s ceaseless attempts to gut every aspect of the Affordable Care Act.  If I am elected, I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the Hobby Lobby ruling: providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions. The accommodation will allow women at these organizations to access contraceptive coverage, not through their employer-provided plan, but instead through their insurance company or a third-party administrator.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
No mercy for cultural enemies. <a href="https://t.co/7oPmKRIXMe">https://t.co/7oPmKRIXMe</a>
&mdash; Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) <a href="https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1281241311996239878?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Not sure how he would do that. 
Ignore the Supreme Court? <a href="https://t.co/8lX7U9O6Mo">https://t.co/8lX7U9O6Mo</a>
&mdash; Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) <a href="https://twitter.com/Neoavatara/status/1281243223726477312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

President Obama attends the National Prayer Breakfast – DC

Supreme Court Rules For Trump Administration And Religious Organizations. Biden: ‘I Will Restore The Obama-Biden Policy’

Joe Biden

Supreme Court

Anyone even slightly familiar with the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin understands how you break a society, maybe forever. Certainly government violence, the threat of violence, the curtailing or stripping of basic human freedoms has something to do with it. But as we have seen in various cultures, including our own in 1776, it takes something a whole lot more than that.
If a government is going to destroy a society as a means to turn its people into mindless, unquestioning subjects, it must go beyond violence, torture and tyranny; it must break the human spirit within each and every one of us. In order to create willing subjects, the State must force us to betray ourselves &#8212; to willingly believe lies, to willingly violate our own conscience, or as Orwell so strikingly portrayed it, to willingly accept that 2+2=5.
Once a free people is pressured to give in to what Soviet writer Boris Pasternak described as the &#8220;inhuman reign of the lie,&#8221; once a society willingly surrenders its moral and intellectual conscience to the State, only then is that person and/or society truly broken and by extension made a useful and willing tool of the State.
From Lenin to Stalin to Hitler to Castro to Mao to Chavez, the &#8220;inhuman reign of the lie&#8221; is a well worn tactic used by socialist tyrants. In current times, right here in America, it is a tactic increasingly used by the leftwing tyrants in our national media and Democrat Party.
Look around. At this very moment, 24/7 through the corporate-funded news media, 24/7 through most everything pumped out of corporate-funded Hollywood, we are relentlessly bullied into believing men are women, illegal immigration is good for our economy, Islam means &#8220;peace,&#8221; a sign declaring a &#8220;gun-free zone&#8221; stops rather than encourages madmen, praying in public oppresses others, 5-year-old children should be allowed to choose their own gender, homosexuality is not a sin, global warming is real and creates terrorists, the federal government is the answer to every problem, and our national media is a non-partisan watchdog.
The American left understands that every individual who can be bullied by the Beautiful People &#8212; bullied by peer pressure, by the promise of acceptance, by threats of being labeled a rube or bigot &#8212; into believing these (and many other) audacious lies, is nothing less than another slave to the State.
And between 2008 and 2016, our very own president worked tirelessly to be his own Castro and Hitler, primarily through his namesake Obamacare.
The least of Obamacare&#8217;s inhuman reign of lies involved those about keeping our insurance, premiums going down, or even the very idea that health care will improve through even more intervention from the federal government.
No, what is truly malevolent and evil about Obama and Obamacare, and intentionally so, is the attempt to break or destroy Christian religious institutions by forcing them to violate their conscience. Obamacare offers religious institutions only two choices. They can either fund abortion and birth control through the health care they provide or they can choose not to provide health care and pay a crippling fine to the State.
Any religious institution that gives into this is, without question, selling its religious soul, violating its religious conscience, on the road to being forever broken and therefore closer to being a useful subject of the State.
And this is the ONLY reason Obama put this mandate into Obamacare. It is ONLY there to oppress the religious and break their spirit. We know this because there is no good reason not to exempt religious institutions from this tyranny. Forcing the religious to provide services that violate the core foundations of their faith does absolutely nothing to help the overall Obamacare program work.
Again and again and again on the campaign trail, Donald Trump told us he understood this, made us believe that killing the inhuman reign of the Obamacare lie was a top priority. Again and again and again, Trump used the horror story of the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Christian institution fighting against this mandate for its very conscience and existence, to illustrate his promise.
Then, after being elected president, Trump used the signing of an executive order to assure us he had <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/05/04/presidential-executive-order-promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty">kept this promise</a>.
And now, six months into his presidency, two months after the signing of this order, we learn from The Daily Caller that President Trump&#8217;s very own Department of Justice <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/doj-lawyers-still-battling-christians-over-obamacare-contraception-mandate/">is still persecuting the Littler Sisters of the Poor</a>, that absolutely NO relief has been offered, that it is as though Obama is still in office, that Trump has not even come close to keeping his promise, that his executive order was pure hustle.
As long as Trump passes his agenda to stop illegal immigration, keep us safe from international terrorists, builds that damn wall, reforms the tax code, repeals Obamacare and destroys the media, I do not give a damn how he goes about it, how much chaos he causes, how much anxiety results from his tweets, his words, his violations of those precious norms&#8230;
Trump can play with all the fire he wants and play as dirty as he likes. As long as it is in pursuit of his stated agenda, other than illegality or violence, everyone who loves their country should have his back. 
But to discover that a full six months into this presidency that the Trump Administration is mercilessly enforcing Obama&#8217;s reign of terror against the Little Sisters of the Poor, and has done so as recently as Friday &#8230; that is nothing less than a betrayal.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/NolteNC">@NolteNC</a>. Follow his Facebook Page <a href="https://www.facebook.com/JohnNolteNC/?skip_nax_wizard=true">here</a>.

Trump BETRAYAL: Little Sisters Of The Poor Still Facing Federal Government Persecution

Barack Obama

Constitution

Donald Trump

Obama Administration

Obamacare

Religion

Trump Administration

According to a leaked draft of a regulation <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/31/15716778/trump-birth-control-regulation">obtained</a> by Vox, President Donald Trump will no longer force employers to foot the bill for contraception, including sterilization and the morning-after pill, if they have moral or religious objections to it &#8211; a major victory for religious liberty. 
The Trump regulation states that the Health and Human Services mandate added to Obamacare, which forced employers to pay for employees&#8217; contraception, would be massively reigned in, allowing any employer to request exemption from the mandate due to moral or religious reasons.
This is a huge step forward for religious liberty: government force will no longer mandate that a person violate their conscience to provide something to which they are morally or religiously opposed. 
Under the Obama mandate, only houses of worship were exempt from compliance. As <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/leaked-trump-administration-birth-control-rule-would-expand-religious-exemption.html">noted</a> by The Associated Press, the Supreme Court, via the famous Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, &#8220;later ruled that closely held private companies were also eligible for the workaround, through which the government arranges contraceptive coverage for the affected women employees.&#8221;
The White House has called the 100-plus-page document obtained by Vox an &#8220;alleged draft,&#8221; adding that the contraception mandate is still under final review.
Still, there is good reason to believe Trump will broaden the scope of employers eligible to request noncompliance of the mandate. Just last month, for instance, the president met with nuns from the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charity that challenged the Obama Administration in court for years over the birth control mandate; Trump called them up to the front The Price is Right-style and lamented the &#8220;attacks&#8221; against them. The president signed a religious liberty executive order which gave the sisters &#8220;regulatory relief&#8221; from the mandate. 
&#8220;We know, all too well, the attacks against the Little Sisters of the Poor,&#8221; said Trump. &#8220;Incredible nuns who care for the sick, the elderly and the forgotten.&#8221;
Trump also promised a full repeal-and-replace of Obamacare during the 2016 campaign, which conservatives interpreted as, at the very least, including slashing unconstitutional mandates. 
Proponents of religious liberty were cautiously pleased with the report. 
&#8220;A change in the rule is welcome and good,&#8221; said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the group that legally represented the Little Sisters of the Poor against the Obama mandate. &#8220;I hope that the leaked draft we&#8217;re looking at obviously becomes law.&#8221;
But, as <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448162/obamacare-contraception-mandate-trump-administration-should-end-it">argued</a> by National Review&#8216;s Alexandra DeSanctis, while widening the exemption to the mandate is a good start, ridding the mandate all together would be ideal:
<blockquote>
&#8220;Trump should instruct his HHS department to roll back the mandate in its entirety, as he has repeatedly promised to do, ending this disastrous exercise in executive overreach. If he does, it will restore much-needed balance to this issue and, just like the Left is clamoring for, de-politicize it.&#8221;
</blockquote>
As you might suspect, feminists are already pulling out their pink hair and planning the next Seneca Falls Convention due to the &#8220;huge blow&#8221; to women&#8217;s rights. Some left-wing groups are already threatening lawsuits against the Trump Administration. 
&#8220;If this rule is made final, we will file a lawsuit,&#8221; <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/leaked-trump-administration-birth-control-rule-would-expand-religious-exemption.html">said</a> Gretchen Borchelt, a top official at National Women&#8217;s Law Center. &#8220;Women are going to lose no-cost birth control coverage under this rule.&#8221;

Trump’s Expected Rollback Of Birth Control Mandate A Big Step For Religious Liberty

Birth Control

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will start hearing oral arguments on the <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/03/23/supreme-court-to-hear-oral-arguments-in-little-sisters-of-the-poor-case-n2138225">Zubik v. Burwell case</a> regarding the Obamacare contraception mandate. The most well-known plaintiff in the case is the Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit that provides homes for the elderly in need. With the organization in the spotlight, here are five things you need to know about them.
1. The Obama administration is fighting nuns. According to the organization&#8217;s <a href="http://www.littlesistersofthepoor.org/mission-statement/">mission statement,</a> the Little Sisters of the Poor are &#8220;an international congregation of Roman Catholic religious women founded in 1839 by Saint Jeanne Jugan.&#8221; In other words, they&#8217;re nuns who provide charity to the elderly poor in over 30 countries. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) makes the following point on Twitter:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
If you&#8217;re litigating against nuns, you have probably done something wrong, and the Obama Admin is doing so right now: <a href="http://t.co/uwxkoHXQ6c">https://t.co/uwxkoHXQ6c</a>
&#8212; Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/489489002064789504">July 16, 2014</a></blockquote>
Especially since, as Carl Bergquist, the &#8220;mayor&#8221; of the Washington, D.C. Sister&#8217;s home, tells <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/23/little-sisters-supreme-court-religion-contraception/82121446/">USA Today,</a> &#8220;There&#8217;s not much sex going on here.&#8221; 
2. Religious freedom is at stake in this Supreme Court decision. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433051/little-sisters-poor-supreme-court">National Review</a>&#8216;s David French explains that the mandate in question stems from a Department of Health and Human Services&#8217;s regulation compelling religious employers such as the Little Sisters of the Poor to fill out a form that states their &#8220;religious objection, but also of the &#8216;name and type&#8217; of its plan and &#8216;the name and contact information for any of the plan&#8217;s third party administrators and health insurance issuers.'&#8221; HHS then forces the employers&#8217; insurer to provide free coverage for contraception. Despite this supposed exemption, the Little Sisters of the Poor would still be mandated to violate their religious beliefs:
<blockquote>
HHS still requires the Sisters to participate in the process of providing contraceptives even if that process does not include payment. They&#8217;re required to facilitate the provision of abortifacients and other contraceptives by providing the government with ongoing access to updated insurance information. Other religious employers, such as churches, don&#8217;t have to participate in the process at all. They don&#8217;t file forms. They don&#8217;t notify the government. They simply provide health plans in accordance with their religious beliefs.
</blockquote>
The Little Sisters of the Poor argue that the contraception mandate is in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal statute stating that a law straining freedom of religion can only legally be enforced if there is a &#8220;compelling government interest&#8221; to do so in the &#8220;least restrictive means&#8221; possible. Their religious beliefs are clearly being violated in this instance, and the government cannot have a compelling interest to force religious employers to provide free contraception when they already have exempted numerous organizations and employees can obtain free contraception by enrolling in the Obamacare exchanges, the Sisters argue.
There is no question then that the mandate violates religious freedom and the Supreme Court would be ruling against religious liberty if they side with the Obama administration.
&#8220;If a group of Catholic nuns can be dragooned into facilitating the sexual revolution because bureaucratic rulemaking trumps essential civil liberties, then religious freedom as a distinct American freedom is nearly extinguished,&#8221; writes French.
3. The Little Sisters of the Poor would be subject to <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/21/little-sisters-of-the-poor-case-heads-to-supreme-court/">enormous fines</a> if they lose this case and don&#8217;t violate their conscience. $70 million a year, to be exact.
4. Justice Antonin Scalia&#8217;s death looms large over this case. Scalia, himself &#8220;a devout Catholic and a hero to the Little Sisters of the Poor&#8221; according to USA Today, likely would have been the fifth vote to side with the Sisters. Instead, there&#8217;s a good chance that the court will be deadlocked at a 4-4 vote, meaning they would defer to the lower court&#8217;s ruling against the Sisters. However, the Sisters could re-litigate the case when Scalia&#8217;s vacancy becomes filled. 
5. The public is on the Little Sisters of the Poor&#8217;s side. A December 2013 <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/22/supreme-court-will-decide-if-obama-can-force-little-sisters-of-the-poor-to-obey-hhs-mandate/">Rasmussen poll</a> determined that 51 percent of Americans don&#8217;t agree with the contraception mandate, and that number increased to 59 percent in another recent poll.

5 Things You Need to Know About The Little Sisters Of The Poor