More Good HHS Mandate News: Appeals Court Blocks Contraception Mandate in Illinois Case UPDATED

More Good HHS Mandate News: Appeals Court Blocks Contraception Mandate in Illinois Case UPDATED December 30, 2012

Another day, another setback for the HHS Mandate. The Christian Post has the scoop,

Days before the contraception mandate, which requires employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs to employees, is set to go into effect, a federal appeals court has temporarily blocked it from being enforced against an Illinois company.

The majority in a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on Friday put the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate on hold. The injunction came in a federal lawsuit filed by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) on behalf of Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., which is owned by a Catholic couple.

Cyril B. Korte and Jane E. Korte own a controlling interest in the company and contend the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. The court majority held that the Kortes had established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their RFRA claim, and that the government had not yet justified the apparent “substantial burden” on their religious exercise.

This was the second injunction by a federal appeals court to temporarily halt enforcement against people who said it violated their faith, according to Reuters. More than 40 lawsuits are challenging a requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires most for-profit companies to offer workers insurance coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices and abortifacients.

Read the rest.

Huzzah! This all reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton said once,

The one perfectly divine thing, the one glimpse of God’s paradise given on earth, is to fight a losing battle – and not lose it.

Maintain an even strain. 😉


From the American Center of Law and Justice (ACLJ), the Appellate Court stated,

The religious‐liberty violation at issue here inheres in the coerced coverage of contraception, abortifacients, sterilization, and related services, not—or perhaps more precisely, not only—in the later purchase or use of contraception or related services.

Read it all.

And don’t forget to support Hobby Lobby.


Browse Our Archives