Obamacare has been the subject of litigation since it was launched, and there have been numerous accusations – that it is unconstitutional, that it violates religious rights, that it invades privacy, that it goes beyond government authority by ordering consumers to purchase a product, and more.

Now a new lawsuit has been filed arguing that the Obama administration is using the law to attack groups of faith that do not support the White House agenda of contraception and abortion for all.

“On information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the purpose of the Final Mandate, including the restrictively narrow scope of the religious employers exemption, is to discriminate against religious organizations that oppose contraception and abortion,” challenges a new lawsuit filed by attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom.

The organization is bringing the case against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez and others on behalf of the Association of Christian Schools International, Samaritan Ministries International, Taylor University and Indiana Wesleyan University.

The fight is just the latest chapter in the reaction by members of various faith groups to the Obama administration’s fixation on its orders that they pay for contraceptives, including abortifacients, to which they have religious objections.

The White House lost that fight in the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled that the law could not force business owners to violate their faith to follow a bureaucratic mandate regarding such killing chemicals.

So the White House has offered, in various ways, an “accommodation” for those groups whereby the abortifacients still would be provided to their employees, it just wouldn’t go on the employer’s paperwork, essentially.

The plaintiffs are bringing the new case because the Obama rules still impose a burden, or duty, on them.

“They believe that God has condemned the intentional destruction of innocent human life. They hold, as a matter of religious conviction, that it would be sinful and immoral for them intentionally to participate in, pay for, facilitate, enable, or otherwise support access to abortion, which destroys human life,” the complaint explains.

“They hold that one of the prohibitions of the Ten Commandments (‘thou shalt not murder’) precludes them from facilitating, assisting in, serving as the conduct for, or enabling the use of drugs and devices that can and do destroy very young human beings in the womb. The health benefits they provide to their employees reflect these convictions.”

The case alleges the Obama administration is violating the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Free Speech Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Further, evidence suggests that members of faiths that object to abortifacients are deliberately being targeted, the case claims.

“The Final Mandate forces the plaintiffs to facilitate government-dictated education and counseling concerning abortion that directly conflicts with their religious beliefs and teaching,” the lawsuit states. “Facilitating this government-dictated speech directly undermines the express speech and messages concerning the sanctity of life that the plaintiffs seek to convey.”

Further, the government’s demand “advances no compelling governmental interest” and such drugs already are commonly available through “numerous alternative mechanisms.”

The government easily could provide the “benefits,” the lawsuit said, or “the government could simply exempt all conscientiously objecting organizations, just as it has already exempted the small subset of nonprofit religious employers that are referred to in Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code.”

After all, the government already provides a multitude of other “exemptions,” it said.

The government, through its actions, already admits that the mandate is not part of any “compelling interest.”

So why is the demand being pursued?

Written by BOB UNRUH
Read more at WND


Leave a Reply