This Answer From ActBlue's CEO Threw This GOP Rep for a Loop
Here's What Karmelo Anthony's Mother Said Outside the Courthouse Following Her Son's Guilt...
Why the GOP Baseball Team Told Biden He Could Visit Their Dugout Whenever...
California Just Showed Why Gun Control Is Racist
You Won't Believe the Sentence This Former Mayor Got for Sleeping With a...
Trump Blasts 'Radical Left Dumocrats' for Taking National Security Hostage Over FISA
Trump's State Department Is Cracking Down on This Birthright Citizenship Scam
Here's What Victor Davis Hanson Has to Say About Graham Platner's Victory in...
Rep. Ro Khanna Just Went All-In on Graham Platner
A Hilton-Pratt Dream Team? Steve Hilton Says He's All In.
President Trump Just Revealed What the United States Is Doing With Seized Iranian...
Trump DHS Moves to Expedite the Deportations of Illegal Aliens Found to Have...
Democrats' Struggle With Men Reflects a Deeper Cultural Disconnect
Here's How Much Oil Went Through the Strait of Hormuz Under a 'Secret...
Philadelphia Teachers Just Admitted the Real Reason Behind the Failure of the Public...
Tipsheet

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

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