Corporate Accountability

TV (FOX News Channel): Religious organizations challenge contraception mandate in federal court

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

 

By Shannon Bream

December 10, 2013

 

Another challenge to the Health and Human Services contraception mandate landed in federal court Monday in a case brought by the group Priests for Life, along with some individual plaintiffs. 

 

They argue that being forced to provide no-cost access to all forms of contraception, including those they believe actually induce abortions, would violate their religious freedom.

 

After Monday’s hearing, Father Frank Pavone, National Director of PFL, said, “What we just saw in that courtroom is of Biblical proportions.”

 

The Obama administration doesn’t see it that way. Government attorneys have argued that there are exemptions for entities that are truly operating as religious organizations and can prove it. 

 

However, the plaintiff’s attorneys argue that even if they are able to qualify, they are still under an unacceptable burden: facilitating employee access to the contraception via a third-party vendor.

 

Pavone said the options are unacceptable, and warns the group will drop health insurance altogether if forced to comply with the mandate. “Where are the brakes?” Pavone asked, adding, “Where does it stop for the government to tell the church what it can and cannot do?”

 

Supporters of the mandate say the administration has worked to find balance.

 

“The Obama administration has, I think, made a very strong compromise trying to accommodate religious liberty interests while at the same time protecting the health of women,” said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center.

 

There are now more than 80 similar lawsuits pending across the country. Just last week, the University of Notre Dame and the Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS), both filed suit, as well.

 

“I think the Obama administration’s attempts to take religious freedom away from anyone are bound to fail,” said Matthew Bowman, the senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing FOCUS.

 

The lower courts considering the dozens of challenges to the HHS mandate may wait for guidance from the Supreme Court.

 

The justices have agreed to hear the cases of two for-profit organizations whose owners say their rights will be violated if they’re forced to comply. Though the newest lawsuits stem from faith-based organizations, that Supreme Court decision — due by June 2014 — could provide enormous legal precedent.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Burgess v. Whang

In Burgess v. Whang, the Fifth Circuit is considering a challenge to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s authority to issue penalties and other supervisory orders. 
Corporate Accountability
October 23, 2024

The Constitution Doesn’t Entitle Drug Manufacturers to a Sweetheart Deal

Washington
Big Pharma is in federal appeals court making the absurd argument that Medicare shouldn’t be...
By: Nina Henry
Corporate Accountability
October 4, 2024

An Oil Giant Railroads Its SCOTUS Connection To Gut Environmental Law

The Lever
A fossil fuel giant with deep ties to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, along with...
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2024

QUICK TAKE: Corporate Interests at the Supreme Court, 2023-2024 Term

Conservative supermajority discards precedent, shifts power to judges, and hobbles agency efforts to enforce the...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 24, 2024

The Supreme Court’s War on Working People Just Got a Little Worse

Balls and Strikes
The decision in Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney is part of a long tradition of the Supreme Court...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.