ACLJ Files Second Amicus Brief in Support of Religious Exemptions to Abortion-Pill Mandate | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion

Verified

ACLJ Files Second Abortion-Pill Mandate Amicus Brief

By Geoffrey Surtees1512748800000

This week, the ACLJ filed a second amicus brief in support of the Administration’s recently issued Interim Final Rules granting religious and moral exemptions to the HHS abortion-pill Mandate. Our first brief was filed last week in the case of Pennsylvania v. Trump.

Like Pennsylvania, California filed a federal lawsuit against the Administration soon after it promulgated the exemptions under the Mandate. Joining California in this case are the states of Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and New York.

These states have asked the federal court in California to keep the Rules from going into effect until it issues a final ruling on the merits of the states’ legal claims. Importantly, they have asked that the court provide a ruling that would apply nationwide.

Should the court accede to the states’ request, the tremendous victory for religious freedom and the right of conscience effected by the new Rules will be short-lived. Groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor would once again be thrown into the unconscionable dilemma of having to choose between adhering to their moral and religious principles—at a cost so high it will shut them down—or kowtowing to the government’s abortifacient mandate in violation of those principles.

That is a choice the Sisters—or any other religious organization or believer—should not be forced to make. No one should ever be forced to pay for or provide abortion pills.

Our brief in the California case advances the same argument made in our brief in the Pennsylvania case: contrary to the assertions made by the states, the Rules do not violate the Establishment Clause. Like thousands of state and federal laws that offer religious exemptions for those burdened by a government-imposed requirement, the Rules are in keeping with our country’s longstanding commitment to honoring religious freedom and respecting the right of conscience.

Indeed, the original understanding of the Establishment Clause was that it prohibited Congress from establishing a national religion. It was never intended to prohibit the government from allowing individuals and groups to adhere to their religious commitments.

In his famous 1789 letter to the Quakers, George Washington, the Father of the Country, wrote:

The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness: and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them, as a due regard for the protection and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.

Whether the wishes of George Washington will be honored in this case, or thwarted by state officials who think that free access to abortifacient drugs trumps the right of conscience, remains to be seen. We are certainly hopeful that the presiding judge in this case will make the correct decision to protect religious autonomy and freedom.

We will keep you posted as the California and Pennsylvania cases work their way through the courts. Much is at stake in this struggle for the preservation of the sacred right of conscience.

Life Begins at Conception

Pro Life  Signatures

LOGIN

Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.

$20
$40
$60
$120
$240
Make this a monthly tax-deductible gift.

As we defend unborn babies, we urgently need your Tax-Deductible support. Chip in $5 or more today to defend life & defeat Big Abortion.

Email Address is required.
First Name is required.
Last Name is required.
Credit Card Number is required.
Verification Code is required.
Expiration Month is required.
Expiration Year is required.
Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.
Encourage your friends to sign and donate by sharing this petition.
Latest in
Pro Life

Planned Parenthood Challenge to Arkansas Law Rejected

By Edward White1529071200000

Recently, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge brought by Planned Parenthood against an Arkansas law requiring abortion pill providers to contract with a physician who has hospital admitting privileges. Planned Parenthood had successfully convinced a trial court to grant an injunction against the...

read more

Can the Government Refuse to Hire a Pro-Life Nurse?

By Francis J. Manion1528984800000

No sooner had the disastrous results of Ireland’s recent referendum to repeal that country’s longstanding constitutional protection of unborn children been announced, than the pro-abortion side began making noises about the need to coerce even religiously objecting doctors and nurses into...

read more

Cecile Richards Received a Human Rights Award

By ACLJ.org1528898400000

It could be one of the most perplexing awards ever given. Big Abortion ambassador and former Planned Parenthood CEO, Cecile Richards recently received a HUMAN RIGHTS award. That’s right – the woman who we told you presided over the murders of over 3.5 million innocent babies in her 12 year tenure...

read more

The Fight to Defund Planned Parenthood Goes to the Supreme Court

By Laura Hernandez1527881077535

The ACLJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief this week in the Supreme Court in an important case involving the states’ prerogative to defund Planned Parenthood. The case is Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. We filed in support of the State of Louisiana’s decision to disqualify Planned...

read more