To the sponsor of my GHI plan:Based on my religious beliefs and practices, this letter verifies to you my opposition not only to GHI which includes religiously offensive but mandatory coverage for abortion, contraception and/or sterilization, but in addition, to the HHS mandate which in January 2013 requires you to sponsor such a GHI plan, as well. 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 all coverage for abortion, contraception and/or sterilization. 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 into 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”, yet only as misapplied to uphold this GHI as “lawful”; Cf. Catholic Charities, 85 P.3d 67, 91 (S.Ct.Ca. 2004).
GHI VIOLATES CIVIL RIGHTS AND CATHOLICISM
I. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION CLAIM
As a GHI-sponsor and as a condition of eligibility for all non-offensive-to-religion GHI benefits, in turn, you practice religious discrimination by coercing me to violate religion in practice by paying that portion of the Employees' Share of my GHI premiums that goes to pay all coverage for abortion, contraception and/or sterilization; for verification, 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 include mandatory abortion, contraception and/or sterilization coverage.
II. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION CLAIM
Yet, even if arguendo all GHI-plans did not require The Employees’ Share and/or The Employers' Share of GHI-plan premiums - in part or in whole - nevertheless, as the GHI-sponsor, and/or as a condition of employee-eligibility for all non-offensive-to-religion GHI benefits, nevertheless, as an employer, you still unconstitutionally burden the Free Exercise of my Religion in practice in violation to the Federal First Amendment by still including religiously offensive but to add insult to injury, mandatory, coverage for abortion, contraception and/or sterilization in my GHI plan which is itself religousl offensive, precisely because you, as my GHI sponsor, are now coercing me to consent to a always-available temptation to violate religion in practice or else be punished for not doing so by denying me any eligibility to join any GHI plan, thereby, in turn, effectively denying me non-offensive-to-religion GHI benefits that I would otherwise be entitled to had all these religiously offensive practices never been covered. This temptation above is indicated precisely by the incentive to sin, here money in GHI "benefits" which the GHI-plan member would receive for committing sin by practicing and filing for religiously offensive but mandatory coverage for abortion, contraception and/or sterilization.
III. UNIQUE FREE EXERCISE CLAIM
On the one hand, the burden on the free exercise of religion, described in "I" above, and likewise the burden on the free exercise of religion described in "II", above, both imposed simultaneously, each is 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 unique 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  my consenting to both violate my religion in practice and/or my consenting to a temptation to do so, always-available no less [which may also depend on whether I am required to pay The Employees’ Share, whether the employer pays the entire cost as the Employer's Share of GHI premiums, or or else on its face none pay this prton of Anti-Life GHI premiums] and  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 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 my other blog at PROLIFE TAX STRIKE, which demonstrates that the U. S. Supreme Court double-talked, yet all lower courts - and I dare say, itself included - followed in an error, yet, which The Prolife People and I must seriously halt now!
ANTI-LIFE HHS MANDATE IS UNCHRISTIAN
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 PAYING DAILY HEAVY FINES AND/OR a perennial 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 His Holiness Pope Paul VI both in Humanae vitae in 1968 and in his Declaration on Procured Abortion [paragraphs #19-#27] in 1974, both approved by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, including Evangelium vitae by His Holiness Pope John Paul II in 1995, which reads 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 [for example, the HHS mandate, added] 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, which I am entitled to as an American citizen in the U.S., to be addressed by the Government and/or you as my employer, to be adopted, soon, I remain, Yours truly, _______
DIRECTIONS FOR OPPOSING HHS MANDATE:
Send Lawrence R. Rosano at L.R.Rosano@gmail.com (and/or if impossible, then, at P. O. Box 537, Franklin Square, N.Y. 11010), a copy of your employer complaint and/or intention 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. The reason for the above directions is that in 1979, when I first began my federal employment, as memorialized in Rosano v. United States, 9 Cl.Ct. 137, 143-144 (1985), I was told that I was the only person in the United States who was opposed to paying that portion of my Employee's Share of GHI plan premiums which in turn went to pay for abortion, contraception and sterilization coverage based on the Federal First and/or Fourteenth Amendment Rights in order to pursue this proposed Prolife Civil Rights Class Action lawsuit. 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 have no clout to succeed, and therefore would be impossible to even conceive of.