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 -- to trigger coverage of abortion-inducing drugs for their employees.
As explained in more detail here, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby did not stop the Obama administration from aggressively moving forward with its mission to make abortion-inducing drugs as widely available as possible -- even if it means requiring a Catholic order of nuns, like the Little Sisters of the Poor, to violate their conscience.
Until today, every court of appeals to consider the matter has ruled in favor of the administration and its onerous Mandate and bogus “accommodation.” Contrary to the plain meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision explaining that federal law, these courts held that the religious exercise of a religious group is not substantially burdened when that group is forced to execute a document that triggers the provision of drugs to which it religiously objects.
In today’s rulings, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals got it right -- and showed why the other courts got it wrong. The Eighth Circuit correctly understood that it is not the role of the courts to “second-guess” a religious claimant’s “honest assessment” of what does and does not violate his religious beliefs. In deciding whether a law substantially burdens religious beliefs, courts should look no further than the penalties imposed for failure to comply with the law and whether those penalties compel obedience; they are not to decide whether a religious claimant’s beliefs and practices are correct or reasonable. Courts of law are courts of law, not courts of theology.
For these reasons, in light of the sincerely held religious beliefs of the non-profit challengers in these cases, the Eighth Circuit held that compelling “participation in the accommodation process by threat of severe monetary penalty is a substantial burden on their exercise of religion.”
Because of today’s rulings, there is now a clear division of opinion among the circuit courts of appeal as to whether the administration can force religious groups to comply with the Mandate through its so-called “accommodation.” And thanks to this circuit split, over an issue of fundamental importance involving federal laws and regulations, Supreme Court intervention is almost certain.
We should know for sure this fall what course of action the Supreme Court will take.
We will keep you posted.
Take action with the ACLJ at the Supreme Court to defeat ObamaCare and have your tax-deductible gift doubled today.
The GOP has put forward their final attempt to repeal ObamaCare this year: The Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill, also known as Graham-Cassidy . Vice President Mike Pence has aptly described this as “ our last best chance to stop and turn [ObamaCare] around .” Time is of the essence because the...
What if you hired an architect to build you a house and the house collapsed during the housewarming party? Well, that pretty much sums up the work of Dr. Jonathan Gruber, former MIT economist and a chief architect of ObamaCare. As we’ve been reporting for years , Gruber duped the American people:
The Senate has just agreed to debate the repeal of ObamaCare. This is a massive first step toward undoing more than 7 years of taxes, mandates, and pro-abortion legislation that has crippled our healthcare system. The motion to proceed to debate passed with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President...
Against the backdrop of exploding insurance premiums and vanishing options for healthcare, it is time for the U.S. Senate to deliver on the promises its members have been making to voters for more than seven years. For multiple election cycles in a row, a majority of the U.S. Senate has campaigned...