American legal precedent has established that before the government can require a citizen to violate his or her conscience, it must be a “compelling issue” of national interest, and it cannot put a “substantial burden” — directly or indirectly — on the person to obey. The American Center for Law and Justice and the other public interest law firms handling HHS cases contend that none of these apply.
“The history of this country has been that even during war, when we need bodies in our army to protect us, we give respect to religious views,” says Ed White, Lead Counsel for the ACLJ’s suit on behalf of two Sidney, OH, produce companies against he US Department of Health and Human Services.
In arguments defending the government for the more than 40 cases pending against the HHS, White says, lawyers have generally argued that the compelling interest is “gender and healthcare equality” — in other words that women need to be provided with birth control devices and drugs, voluntary sterilization, and “morning after” pills at no cost to themselves in order to be equal to men. . . .
You can read the entire story here.
As we approach the one year anniversary of the Hobby Lobby decision , where the Supreme Court held that the HHS Mandate violated the religious liberties of business owners, it’s clear that the struggle to vindicate religious freedom and the right to conscience is far from over. Having said that,
Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could cripple ObamaCare. The Supreme Court has a critical opportunity to reject IRS regulations that illegally authorize tax subsidies for purchasers of health insurance on federal healthcare exchanges. The ACLJ has filed an amicus...
After his “glib” apology before Congress this week for calling the American people “stupid,” ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber attempted to dodge, duck, dip, dive, and … dodge every substantive question that came his way. He refused to answer even the simplest questions like how much ( millions )
From day one, we have warned that the real danger of Obamacare is not in the 2,700 pages of its text (as bad as they are), but in the hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that would flow out of that text. This week provides yet another example of that danger, and it is in the...