Appellate Court Blocks HHS Mandate – ACLJ Clients’ Religious Liberty Protected | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

Appellate Court Blocks HHS Mandate

By Matthew Clark1356803157000

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued a critical ruling temporarily blocking the abortion-pill mandate from forcing our clients, business owners in Illinois, to violate their faith.  The injunction pending appeal blocks the HHS mandate just days before the mandate was set to go into effect for our clients.

With this important ruling, all of the ACLJ’s clients with pending litigation over the HHS mandate have now been granted a temporary reprieve from the mandate’s violation of religious liberty as our lawsuits continue.

Of note, 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.

This makes clear that forcing people of faith to pay for health insurance that covers abortion pills is no less a violation of religious liberty than to force the owners to directly pay for abortion services in violation of their faith.

The ACLJ has now achieved critical appellate victories, the first two of their kind among the numerous lawsuits that have been filed in the country, in both the Seventh and Eighth Circuits.

As the Seventh Circuit noted, and as we have consistently argued, the HHS mandate forces people of faith “to choose between violating their religious beliefs by maintaining insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization services contrary to the teachings of their faith and subjecting their company to substantial financial penalties.”

No one should be forced to make such a choice.

It is also important to note that the court stated that the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene in Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the mandate earlier this week, is not determinative of this case or many others across the country, as the legal standard for the Supreme Court’s intervention requested in that case “differs significantly” from the standard applicable to motions for injunction in federal trial and appellate courts.

We will continue to fight for the right of every citizen of faith to opt out of the abortion pill mandate.  In addition to our three direct challenges to the mandate, we have filed amicus briefs in over a dozen other cases.  You can add your name to our pro-life amicus briefs to defend religious liberty here.

Latest in

HHS Mandate Challenges Move Forward

By Geoffrey Surtees1442515755574

Thanks to two decisions of a federal court of appeals handed down today ( here and here ), it is now almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide next term whether the Obama administration can force religious entities, institutions, and groups -- under pain of severe financial penalties...

read more

Helping Little Sisters of the Poor

By Geoffrey Surtees1440436960697

Just over one year ago, the Supreme Court held in the Hobby Lobby decision that the HHS Mandate, a federal regulation requiring non-exempt employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs and services to its employees, violated the religious rights of closely held corporations and their owners. It was...

read more

Though Flawed, ObamaCare Stands

By Michelle Terry1435602214218

About a month ago, we discussed five critical failures of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Unfortunately, we now know that the highest Court in the land has determined – again – that this law will stand, despite its many flaws. Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United...

read more

Supreme Court Again Rewrites ObamaCare

By Jay Sekulow1435247432884

It’s a troubling and disappointing decision by the Supreme Court. Today’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court backing the Obama Administration’s health care law – granting taxpayer subsidies not authorized by Congress in order to save the flawed law – did not interpret the law. The majority...

read more