Brief filed opposing Obamacare contraception/abortifacient mandate
January 19, 2016
Zubik v. Burwell & Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell
(Read brief here)
Last week our firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a legal challenge to the Obamacare contraceptive/abortifacient
mandate. Although religious organizations such as Little Sisters have been relieved of the statutory requirement of directly buying health insurance to pay for
employees who wish to avoid having a baby (by use of contraceptives and abortifacients), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services now insists that Little
Sisters must indirectly facilitate employees' access to such services by certifying employees to be eligible.
The Little Sisters refused to sign these certifications on the ground that affixing their signatures would make them complicit in what would follow,
possibly including the death of an aborted baby. The court of appeals below rejected the Little Sisters' objection on the ground that, in its judicial opinion, the
signing of a government form would bring no moral complicity.
In our brief, we reminded the U.S. Supreme Court that it was not Congress that had issued the contraceptive/abortifacient mandate; indeed, not even HHS had
done so. Rather, both Congress and the Obama Administration had washed their hands of the matter, outsourcing the issue to a Committee of 16 medical
professionals selected by the Institute of Medicine ("IOM"), a nongovernment advocacy organization of practitioners of allopathic medicine.
Further, our brief documented that the IOM committee was dominated by radical feminist advocates who adopted the contraceptive/abortifacient mandate as a means
of promoting a sexually promiscuous lifestyle without risk of either unwanted children or an unwanted pregnancy. The mandate would force Little Sisters to
facilitate a childless lifestyle based on supposed secular "well being," in violation of the Little Sisters' efforts to build a Catholic culture of life. The
mandate thus violates not only federal law, but also more importantly, the Free Exercise of religion guarantee of the First Amendment.
Finally, we noted that the Court had limited the issue that it would consider to whether the U.S. Government had a "compelling state interest" to override the
religious convictions of the Little Sisters under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). However, our brief urged the Court to order re-briefing to
decide whether the mandate violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Our brief details how some in the Christian Community thought that they were putting one over on President Bill Clinton, who signed the RFRA after these
Christian "leaders" secured the support of the ACLU, and got the bills passed through the House and Senate. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act actually
authorizes the federal government to "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion ... if it demonstrates that the application of the burden to the
person - (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (2) is the least restrictive means" to do so. Anyone who fails to appreciate the
fraud that RFRA has been proven to be and how RFRA has actually reduced religious liberties in America should read Section V of our Brief.
r
Now, some of the same people who gave us RFRA are urging Americans to follow their lead again in passing the Parents Protection Act. This misnamed Parents
Protection Act authorizes the federal government to infringe the "liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children" whenever
the government has an "interest ... of the highest order and not otherwise served."
Our brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, Eberle Communications Group, Public Advocate of the United States, Citizens United, Citizens United
Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Institute on the Constitution, Policy Analysis Center, Southwest Prophecy Ministries, Daniel Chapter
One, and Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall.
|
