CBP and ICE Chiefs Faced Off Against Unhinged Dems...and One Said the Quiet...
Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has Been Telling Some Weird Lies About His Ancestor and...
DOJ Charges Two Men in $120 Million Adult Day Care Fraud Scheme
This GOP Governor Just Shot Down a Bill That Would Have Banned Biological...
Chewing the Fat on the Left's 'Body Positivity' Flip Flop
National Nurses Union Calls for the Abolition of ICE
While Her Senate Rivals Campaign Statewide, Haley Stevens Hides From Voters
Delaware Smacked Down for Trying to Enforce Law, Ignoring Injunction
Dow 50,000: A Supply-Side Miracle
Tensions Rise At the White House's New Religious Liberty Commission as One Member...
Mike Johnson Blasts Mamdani's DOH for Creating a ‘Global Oppression’ Group Focused on...
Kentucky Senate Candidate Andy Barr Endorses Pro-Amnesty Book Despite Pledging to Be ‘Amer...
Even CNN Knows That Democrats Are on the Wrong Side of the Voter...
Ken Paxton Notches Immigration Win As Premier Community for Illegals Pays Out $68...
This Congressman's Inquiry Into Bad Bunny's Explicit Performance Has the Libs Screaming
Tipsheet

Judge: Moral AND Religious Exemptions Can Be Made For Contraception Mandate

A decision in the March for Life v. Burwell  lawsuit has paved way for more litigation and debate over the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, with a federal judge ruling that moral objections are legitimate reasons to exempt an organization from the birth control mandate.

Advertisement

The New York Times  reported that March for Life, an organization that began in 1973 after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the country, filed a lawsuit against the Department for Health and Human Services over their contraception mandate for equal protection violations. The Times added that the group feels they’re being treated differently than other “similarly situated employers” by the government:

Judge Richard J. Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the government’s position. “This not only oversimplifies the issue — it misses the point entirely,” Judge Leon wrote.

“The characteristic that warrants protection — an employment relationship based in part on a shared objection to abortifacients — is altogether separate from theism. Stated differently, what H.H.S. claims to be protecting is religious beliefs, when it actually is protecting a moral philosophy about the sanctity of life.”

“H.H.S. may be correct that this objection is common among religiously affiliated employers,” he added. “Where H.H.S. has erred, however, is in assuming that this trait is unique to such organizations. It is not.”

Giving religious groups special treatment, Judge Leon wrote, amounts to “regulatory favoritism.” Moral philosophy, he said, should be accorded the same treatment as religious belief.

Advertisement

Of course, an appeal is going to be filed by the government. Last summer, Hobby Lobby won a limited victory in their lawsuit against the HHS mandate. The Supreme Court ruled that their objection was valid, but since Hobby Lobby is a closely-held, for-profit business, it only applies to similar entities. March for Life is a secular, non-profit organization. At the same time, the business already covered 16 of the 20 types of contraception outlined in the HHS mandate. The only four they objected to are the ones the business owners considered abortifacients.

For the other side, Ian Millhiser of the left-leaning Think Progress wrote that this is the “wackiest anti-birth control court decision to date.”

Friendly Reminder: At the time of the Hobby Lobby decision, Guy aptly noted that contraception isn’t illegal, it’s widely accessible, and vast majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are fine with it.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos