Total Pageviews


Every Roman Catholic Prolifer who is a member, or else an applicant* to become a member, of a group health insurance ["GHI"] plan, which includes coverage for abortion, contraception and/or sterilization, should at once mail, either almost verbatim or else your own personally comfortable version of, the following letter:

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

To the sponsor of my (or proposed*, added) plan:

This letter explains why I, as a Roman Catholic demand a rebate of that portion of my group health insurance premium, hereinafter known as The Employees’ Share, which goes to pay for abortion-, contraception-, and/or sterilization-, coverage. In turn, as a result, I expect to pay less GHI premium, thereby, reflecting the cost of this religiously offensive coverage deducted there from. Moreover, under the law, you are not even allowed to raise a minimus analysis to prove how doing so is not possible, precisely, because the temptation to violate religion you have designed in this GHI plan is “in practice”, rather than “in principle only”, the latter of “which” was only considered under the facts and circumstances in Sherbert v. Verner (1963), which is thereby “clearly erroneous”, only as misapplied to uphold this GHI as “lawful”; Cf. Catholic Charities, 85 P.3d 67, 91 (S.Ct.Ca. 2004).



As a GHI-sponsor and as a condition of eligibility for GHI “benefits”, all of which are non-offensive-to-religion, in turn, you practice religious discrimination by coercing me to pay that portion of my GHI premiums that goes to pay for abortion-, contraception- and/or sterilization-, coverage, which violates my religious practice, see Evangelium vitae at paragraph #74 (below) or else be punished for not doing so by a denial of eligibility to join any GHI plan offered since all GHI-plans of which include mandatory abortion-, contraception-, and/or sterilization-, coverage.


Yet, even if the GHI-plan did not require The Employees’ Share, nevertheless, as the GHI-sponsor, and as a condition of eligibility for GHI "benefits", all of which are non-offensive-to-religion, you unconstitutionally burden the free exercise of my religion in practice in violation to the Federal First Amendment through The Employer's and/or Sponsor’s Share by still including mandatory coverage for abortion, contraception and/or sterilization in my GHI plan because you, as my GHI sponsor, coerce me to consent to a "temptation" to violate religion in practice or else be punished for not doing so by denying eligibility to join any class GHI plan, thereby denying me non-offensive-to-religion GHI “benefits”. This "temptation" above is indicated precisely by the money in GHI "benefits" which the GHI-plan member would receive for practicing and filing for GHI benefits which cover abortion, contraception and/or sterilization, per se.


On the one hand, the burden on the free exercise of religion, described in I, and likewise the burden on the free exercise of religion described in II, above, both imposed simultaneously each a violation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause under the Federal First Amendment. I characterize this violation of law, which is a burden on the free exercise, within another burden on the free exercise, of religion defined as a Free Exercise, within a Free Exercise, of Religion Claim. On the other hand, in addition, further extending this free-exercise-of-religion claim, yet, now as a condition of “employment” instead, which as indicated above, is itself non-offensive-to-religion, in turn, you are thrice placing an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of religion in violation to the Federal First Amendment by coercing me to choose between [1] my consenting to both violate my religion in practice and/or my consenting to a temptation to do so, always-available no less (depending on whether I am required to pay The Employees’ Share or whether the employer pays the entire cost of GHI premiums) and [2] quitting my job altogether, but still entitled to enjoy all the employee-rights to legally sue my employer for a constructive discharge, i.e., as if unlawfully employer-terminated without just cause by following Thomas v. Review Bd. (1981). Consequently, as a precedent in federal first amendment law, these three claims, both regarding benefits and/or three, employment, accurately describe a Free Exercise, within a Free Exercise, of Religion claim, all three impositions of which are independently prohibited; which theory is uniquely and powerfully verified in another blogs at PROLIFE TAX STRIKE, which demonstrates that the U. S. Supreme Court double-talked, yet all lower courts followed in an error, which The Prolife People and I must seriously halt now! CHRISTIANS CAN’T OBEY THIS ANTI-LIFE GHI PLAN:

The designers of my GHI plan, not I, made the decision to cover these religiously offensive practices. On the one hand, I can not obey any "human authority", governmental or not, which coerces me to violate my religion in practice, even if I'd be punished for not doing so , e.g., by a denial of otherwise-available employment and/or any benefits whatsoever, according to my following religious practice: “Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than any human authority [emphasis, added],’” Acts 5: 29. On the other hand, these religiously offensive practices in question were condemned by Pope Paul VI in Humanae vitae in 1968, in his Declaration on Procured Abortion [paragraphs #19-#27] in 1974; both approved by Pope Benedict XVI, including Evangelium vitae by Pope John Paul II in 1995, which is, in part, as follows: “…This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it [emphasis, added]. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom. 2:6; 14:12). To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right,” Id., at paragraph #74. Consequently, “:…our support … of human life must be accomplished through... personal witness … and political commitment [emphasis, added]...... (Jas. 2:14-17)," Id., at paragraph #87. Finally, considering abortion and contraception are “sacrifices” to the Anti-Christ as an idol, which it is, references thereto are at 1 Cor. 8: 9-13 and 1 Cor. 10: 24-33. Thus, waiting for this GHI-policy accommodation, as presented, above, to be adopted, soon, I remain, Yours truly, _______


Send Lawrence R. Rosano at P. O. Box 579, Franklin Square, N.Y. 11010, a donation of $100.00 in order to join his Prolife class-action lawsuit, thereby serving as a needed-"witness" [above] (1) by including your name, address, phone-, and/or fax-, number, and email address, and (2) that of the GHI-Sponsor. Next, (3) easily email by double-clicking the arrow below to other Prolifers this above article/letter, which also can be copied off this blog to paste into a blank document to use as your letter. Finally, this money will also be used to revive Rosano v. United States, 9 Cl.Ct. 137, 143-144 (1985) by providing legal fees, costs and expenses in order to pursue this Prolife Civil Rights class action. As a non-lawyer, in addition, I'm not permitted under the law to represent others, although without my unique definition of a burden on the free exercise of religion, which I copyrighted in 2004, this Prolife Civil Rights class action would be impossible to even conceive of.

About Me

I am a non-lawyer, turned legal researcher to vindicate my termination due to religious discrimination by the Federal Government because I opposed the Federal Employees' Group Health Insurance Program [FHP](i.e., GHI for Federal Employees) including coverage for abortion, contraception and sterilization. Fired on a pretext after only 7 months employed but really for 7 weeks of insubordination due to this FHP issue, all Courts left me in a catch 22 realizing that this issue is a hot potato! When Prolife attorneys told me that I must wait until the law changed, frustrated I represented myself to find out the basis in "the law" that permitted the government or any employer to coerce me to violate my religion in practice or else be punished for not doing so by a denial altogether of all offered FHP benefits not offensive to my religion. So to the contrary of Prolife attorneys, as I point out in my book, I not only uncovered how to reverse the decline in religious freedom for the past 46 years, thereby resolving my FHP issue mentined above, but also learned how to legally justify my Prolife Tax Strike, not only for myself, but for any courageous Prolifer after reading my book!