Supreme Court to consider Morning After pill mandate

The Supreme Court is considering whether or not to hear a case involving a Christian business owner who objects to the Obamacare mandate that he must offer his employees free contraceptives and morning after pills.  Most observers think the court will hear the case.  If it does not, the requirement will stand.  At issue is whether religious liberty extends to how believers live out their faith in their businesses.

From Supreme Court to Consider New Obamacare Case:

Obamacare is before the U.S. Supreme Court again. On Thursday, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) lawyers filed the first viable petition for Supreme Court review involving Kathleen Sebelius’ HHS Mandate, which requires employers to provide abortion-related insurance coverage, even if those employers have a religious objection to abortion.

Section 1001 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) requires all large employers to offer “preventive services” to their employees or face enormous financial penalties. With President Obama’s approval, Sebelius issued a regulation that defined preventive services to include access to birth control, including those that cause abortions after conception. The regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) only allows narrow exceptions, such as for churches, but leaves other religion-oriented or religiously-owned employers subject to the regulation.

Over 60 lawsuits have been filed nationwide against this unprecedented government command. Many involve nonprofit entities, such as the University of Notre Dame. But roughly 35 of these lawsuits involve for-profit businesses which are wholly owned by a person or family with a religious belief against abortion, such as devout Christians .

These lawsuits argue both that the HHS Mandate violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as well as a federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The federal appeals courts have split on whether a religiously-owned business can claim religious-liberty protections and whether requiring people to provide abortion-related services is a substantial burden on religious faith.

In Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in its opinion that the company—owned by the Hahn family, who are devout Mennonites—must obey the HHS Mandate even though they believe abortion is immoral, because companies cannot assert religious-liberty rights.

In ADF’s petition for certiorari, the Hahns’ lawyers ask the Supreme Court to reverse the Third Circuit. The petition states, “Petitioners, a Mennonite family and their closely-held, family-run woodworking business, object as a matter of conscience to facilitating certain contraceptives that they believe can destroy human life.”

It is almost certain the Supreme Court will take up this issue in the coming year, and Conestoga is the first case to offer an acceptable vehicle for the justices to take up the question. Another such case would have been Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the mandate, but Hobby Lobby won before the Tenth Circuit appeals court; the Obama-Holder Justice Department has not asked the High Court to grant review.

This ADF case could well be the next case involving Obama’s namesake legislation considered by the Supreme Court, this time raising profound concerns regarding religious liberty impacting millions of Americans, especially observant Christians.

“All Americans, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith,” ADF Vice President David Cortman—who is lead counsel in the case—told Breitbart News in a statement. “A major aspect of freedom is at stake: If the government can force the Hahns to violate their faith just to engage in their livelihood, then the government can do the same or worse to others.”

Any predictions?  Do you think the court will hear the case?  If it does, how do you think it will rule?

"Good one. I urged Matt just now to answer you and my follow-up question. I ..."

Surprises from the LGBTQ Study
"Matt, please respond to Ben in Oakland's response. I'm wondering about that myself. What if ..."

Surprises from the LGBTQ Study
"There is no valid reason to use profanity in a comment section where it is ..."

The View That Everybody Goes to ..."
"JO & JQ -You are conveniently overlooking that DJT has been, for quite some time, ..."

Church Discipline Against the Attorney General

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment