The Surprising Christian Organizations Suing the Government
American Life LeagueThe Surprising Christian Organizations Suing the Government
Tyndale House Publishers won a temporary injunction against the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraceptive mandate Friday, convincing the D.C. Federal District Court that the requirement violated its religious freedom.
The injunction, which Judge Reggie Walton said he grantedbecause the Bible and Christian book publisher self-funds its insurance, is temporary. However, it raises hope of legal victory for more than 110 hospitals, schools, and corporations that have filed lawsuits against the federal government over the healthcare law. (Catholic organizations have protested the law's requirement that insurance cover contraceptives; evangelical plaintiffs have more narrowly objected to the list of contraceptives that must be covered, including "emergency contraceptives" that may inhibit uterine implantation.)
Early lawsuits against the healthcare law came from Christian organizations that have shown eagerness to engage in political and legal debates. Liberty University, for example, filed suit objecting to the insurance requirement entirely, not just the contraception mandate. Its law firm, Liberty Counsel (which has offices on campus), said the healthcare law was paving the way for "forced abortion and compulsory sterilization."
But more recent suits have come from organizations such as Tyndale, Wheaton College, and Biola University. While conservative, the institutions are not known for suing the federal government for grievances. (For both schools, this is the first such suit.)
"The organizations that have sued the administration over the HHS contraceptives mandate have done so despite, not because of, the 'culture war' aspect of the mandate," said Stanley Carlson-Thies, director of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance.
In fact, says Carlson-Thies, many evangelical organizations have been reluctant to act "for fear they would wrongly be labeled as culture warriors or as trying to make a political point," he said.
With the election over and the healthcare law more politically secure, more legal action is likely.
On November 1, Criswell College, a Dallas-based Christian school, filed a lawsuit against the HHS. The same day, a Michigan district judge granted Catholic-owned Weingartz Supply Company a temporary injunction against the mandate on religious grounds (a Colorado company earlier won a similar injunction). That ruling raised hopes of a similar outcome for Hobby Lobby, which began oral arguments before an Oklahoma district court on the same date. A hearing for Wheaton College has been set for December 14.
Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund, which is representing plaintiffs such as Wheaton College and Hobby Lobby, says his clients are not looking to get involved in "culture wars." Rather, he calls it "conscience wars," because the issue for evangelical plaintiffs is not contraceptives per se, but the Obama administration's argument that they aren't religious enough to qualify for exemption. (The exemption applies only to churches that primarily employ and serve people of their own faith and have as their "purpose" the inculcation of religious belief.)
"It's a narrowing that could impede our very ability to teach, grant degrees, and function as a nationally ranked university in a manner consistent with our beliefs," Biola president Barry H. Corey wrote in September. "Biola University is about as faith-driven and religiously oriented as a university can be. So if we don't fall within the protection of a 'religious exemption,' something is fundamentally wrong."
The Latest in Movie News, May 20, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 21 comments
See all comments
Welby Warner
The effort of christian organizations to become exempt from providing standard benefits for their employees is similar to the effort of some companies to avoid complying with safety regulations for workers on the job or efforts to restrict other rights of employees. Christian organizations should be the last to desire to provide lesser benefits for their employees than other non-christian organizations. If their preaching is effective, then employees would voluntarily make choices to avoid doing things that hurt their bodies, and there would be no claims for such services that many leaders are afraid their employees might use if they had the opportunity. It means that the leaders of these organizations have no confidence in the effectiveness of their teaching and preaching or they would not need to get involved in expensive litigation to enforce restrictions on their employees.
Welby Warner
Elizabeth Ponder, it appears that you have missed the point of what I wrote. I said talking about the religious liberty of an organization is artificial talk, what we are talking about is theeffort of those who have positions of power in these organizations to make rules for employees of these organizations that violate the personal rights of those employees. An organization is an artificial entity created by a state and does not have religious beliefs of a conscience. People who speak as if they do are really playing with words and assuming that organizations are entitled to restrict and control their employees in their private and personal choices. If you understand how insurance works, benefits that are not used do not cost anything. The organization is not paying for any individual's benefit, a benefit is the result of contractual agreements between organizations and employees. Let christian organizations preach the gospel, they have no right to control health choices.
Grace Duplessis
It is true that anyone can get a prescription for birth control, plan B, or other drugs and be able to pay for them. They are relatively inexpensive. But again, what happens when you are an employee of a company owned by Jehovah's Witness? They have a right to refuse to pay their part for blood transfusions. Both my twins had to have multiple blood transfusions in their first few days of life to stay alive. Should their beliefs be pushed on to us? This is when it gets more complicated. Blood transfusions are far from cheap. Should we as a couple have to shell out the $38,000 per baby to keep them alive? Even though we have been paying thousands of dollars a month of health insurance for years? It's always important to remember that Christianity is one religion. Religious liberty should apply to all religions of this country. It's time we got companies out of this and had a single payer system. Ask Canada.