W.L. (Bill) ARMSTRONG; Jeffrey S. May; William L. (Wil) Armstrong, III; John A. May; Dorothy A. Shanahan; Cherry Creek Mortgage Co., Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; Seth D. Harris, in His Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; Jacob J. Lew, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Labor; United States Department of the Treasury, Defendants-Appellees. Association of American Physicians & Surgeons; American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists; Christian Medical Association; Catholic Medical Association; National Catholic Bioethics Center; Physicians for Life; National Association of Pro Life Nurses, Amici Curiae [2013]

Version 1 of 4

Reference to W.L. (Bill) ARMSTRONG; Jeffrey S. May; William L. (Wil) Armstrong, III; John A. May; Dorothy A. Shanahan; Cherry Creek Mortgage Co., Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; Seth D. Harris, in His Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; Jacob J. Lew, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Labor; United States Department of the Treasury, Defendants-Appellees. Association of American Physicians & Surgeons; American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists; Christian Medical Association; Catholic Medical Association; National Catholic Bioethics Center; Physicians for Life; National Association of Pro Life Nurses, Amici Curiae (531 F. App'x 938) strengthens a Bioethics Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Use this case as a source-verified research checkpoint rather than an invented rule statement. The ratio should be extracted from the linked opinion by identifying the legal test applied, the facts treated as decisive, and the court's stated reason for the outcome. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as What Bioethics Law issue does the source record raise, and how should a student verify the rule, holding, and factual trigger from the linked opinion? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.