ACLJ Files Supreme Court Brief in Support of Little Sisters of the Poor and Other Religious Nonprofits | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion

Verified

ACLJ Files in Support of Little Sisters

By Geoffrey Surtees1452556800000

Today, the ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of the Little Sisters of the Poor and other groups challenging the Obama Administration’s abortion pill mandate and its so-called “accommodation.”  The brief was submitted on behalf of over 77,000 ACLJ supporters as an expression of their opposition to the Mandate’s encroachment on religious civil liberties.

As explained in more detail here, this case will decide whether the federal government can force faith-based ministries to comply with the Mandate by requiring them, over and against their religious convictions, to sign a document that authorizes the provision of abortion-inducing drugs to their employees.  It is a legal fight that has been going on in the federal courts for several years now, and, at long last, the Supreme Court is preparing to resolve it.

In our brief filed today, we argue that the Supreme Court should pay very serious consideration to the critical role faith-based ministries play in providing important social services to local communities across the country.  Surveys and studies demonstrate, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that religion promotes charitable giving and volunteering for both religious and secular nonprofit organizations, and that religious organizations promote religious liberty, diversity, and social cohesion. There can also be no doubt that religious nonprofits supplement burdened government programs and thus play a critical role in helping those who cannot help themselves.

Should these groups be forced to pay annual fines to the government for failing to comply with the Mandate, on account of their deeply held moral and religious beliefs, they will take an enormous financial hit.  The Little Sisters of the Poor, for example, will be forced to pay out millions of dollars a year—a colossal amount of money that could be much better spent by the Sisters in caring for the elderly poor.

At stake in this critical case, therefore, is not just the religious civil liberties of faith-based ministries to act according to their conscience.  What’s also at stake are the lives of the poor and needy these ministries serve.  Requiring these groups to pay penalties to the government, for doing nothing more than adhering to their religious beliefs, would have a disastrous impact on the financial resources of these groups, potentially forcing them to shut down completely.  Vulnerable individuals and families, who depend on the services these social ministries provide, deserve much better than that.

The Administration’s position is both alarming and outrageous.  It would rather force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay the government for following their religious beliefs, than allow the Sisters to use that money to help others.  While alarming, however, the Administration’s position is not surprising.  Since day one, this Administration has made it clear, time and again, that it is firmly committed to an ideology of abortion on demand.  If religious beliefs and liberties get in the way of that ideology, according to the government, then so be it.

George Washington stated in his famous Farewell Address that “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”  By imposing the Mandate on those who are morally and religiously opposed to abortion, despite a federal law that allows for religious exemptions, the Administration is radically undermining these foundational supports. Our culture and country will not long survive if the government is permitted to quash religious civil liberties in the name of a regulatory program like the Mandate.

Oral arguments in this important case will take place in the spring and we can expect a decision by the end of June.  We will keep you posted.

Defeat the Abortion-Pill Mandate

Religious Liberty  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 file a major Supreme Court amicus brief to defeat the abortion-pill mandate, take and have your gift doubled today. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.

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.

ACLJ Stands on the Law In Response To MRFF Attacks

By Skip Ash1531490400000

I must confess that I am an unabashed fan of Yogi Berra. In his own inimitable way, he was a master at re-formulating the English language. He could encapsulate more common sense in one, often humorous, stream-of-consciousness quote than almost anyone I know of. My choice for today is: “It’s déjà

read more

Regulating a Couple’s Religious Use in Their Own Home?

By Abigail A. Southerland1530540000000

Many churches, religious organizations and homeowners engaged in religious activity are unaware of the federal laws that protect their religious exercise from unnecessary and burdensome zoning regulations and/or unequal treatment in the zoning process. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized...

read more

Equating Christians in Uniform with Jihadists

By Skip Ash1527602400000

In yet another unhinged rant , Mr. Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, founder and president of the inaptly named Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), has once again claimed that the sky is falling in the U.S. military. And, once again, he has moronically equated sharing the Gospel of Jesus...

read more

ACLJ Helps Protect First Amendment Rights of Student

By ACLJ.org1526652935299

“In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. . . . [S]tudents may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to...

read more