Healthcare

“Obamacare’s punishing life-ending mandates represent the abortion industry’s move from ‘choice’ to coercion, and AUL won’t give up the fight to protect Americans’ freedoms,” said AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (01-11-16) – Americans United for Life’s legal team filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief today in seven consolidated cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenge the Obama Administration’s “HHS mandate” that forces religious non-profit employers to facilitate insurance coverage of life-ending drugs and devices.  The filing marks AUL’s 29^th amicus brief defending the rights of Americans under assault by the landmark anti-life law that is known as Obamacare.

“The Obama Administration’s commitment to advancing an abortion agenda is so perverse that it has spent several years in court attempting to force nuns, priests, and religious schools to be complicit in providing insurance coverage for life-ending drugs and devices. AUL is committed to defending freedom of conscience and urges the Supreme Court to put an end to this coercive, unlawful, and unconstitutional mandate.” said AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

She continued: “The Obama Administration has known from day one that its HHS Mandate violates religious freedom guarantees, which is why it crafted a narrow exemption for churches. But it is equally unlawful and unconstitutional to demand that religious non-profits, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor and Priest for Life, which share the same religious objection as those churches that were granted exemptions, comply with the mandate.”

The Obama Administration announced in an August 2014 regulation that those with religious beliefs opposed to facilitating and paying for life-ending drugs and devices must hand over to the federal government the name and contact information “for any of the plan’s third party administrators and health insurance issuers.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made clear that it will use that information to force the religious employer’s insurance carrier to include the objected-to items and services in the policies purchased by the religious employer.

In November 2015, the Supreme Court granted review in seven cases challenging the Obama Administration’s mandate that forces these religious non-profits to facilitate insurance coverage of life-ending drugs and devices. The now-consolidated cases of Zubik et al. v. Burwell, Priests for Life et al. v. Department of Health & Human Services, Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Burwell, East Texas Baptist University vs. Burwell, Little Sisters of the Poor et al. v. Burwell, Southern Nazarene University et al. v. Burwell, and Geneva College v. Burwell, are on appeal from the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits.

In its brief, available here, AUL demonstrates that the life of a new human being begins at fertilization (conception), that so-called “emergency contraception” has post-fertilization effects that can prevent a new, developing human being from implanting in the uterus and thus ending his or her young life, and that forcing the religious employers such as Little Sisters of the Poor and Priests for Life to facilitate and provide coverage for such drugs violates their freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law.

AUL’s brief was filed on behalf of Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro Life Nurses, National Association of Catholic Nurses, and The National Catholic Bioethics Center.

Dr. Yoest remarked that “federal law and the Constitution do not support the Obama Administration’s shell-game of selective respect for religious freedom.  The Supreme Court has already rightly held in Hobby Lobby that the Obama Administration cannot punish family-run businesses with crippling fines for being pro-life. It is basic commonsense that the law likewise protects nuns, priests, and religious schools from similar coercion.”

Click here to learn more about life-affirming healthcare.

With a mixed decision in Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the march to the U.S. Supreme Court gains momentum.  While on the one hand the D.C. Circuit ruled that a private business cannot be considered a “person” with free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the court did appear to side with the business owners and their individual free exercise rights.

The case involves the “HHS mandate”—the implementation of the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide insurance coverage of potentially life-ending drugs and devices.  The plaintiffs, two brothers who operate their businesses in line with their Catholic faith, filed suit on behalf of themselves and their businesses.  Initially, a federal district court ruled that the businesses could not “exercise” religion and could not be protected by RFRA.  Further, the court concluded that any burden posed by the mandate on the brothers themselves was indirect.

While the D.C. Circuit’s decision last week affirmed the district court’s decision in regard to the businesses, the court reversed when it comes to the individual brothers.  In that regard, the decision is a little mixed for the plaintiffs.  But the decision did include some excellent language calling into question the government’s claims.   For example, at one point the Court indicated that the government “perhaps [had] an incomplete understanding of corporate law.”

The Court seemed to understand what a “Hobson’s choice” it is to force a business owner to choose between following the law (or facing ruinous penalties) or violating religious beliefs.  The Court was also in tune with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in protecting the religious liberties of this nation’s people.

In discussing the government’s claimed necessity for the mandate—to safeguard public health, protect a woman’s compelling interest in autonomy, and promote gender equality—the Court pointed out that the government did little to demonstrate a nexus between those claimed issues and the mandate.   

So here is what happens next: the case returns to the district court.  The D.C. Circuit has indicated that the district court’s original analysis was flawed as to the brothers’ claims, and it needs to reevaluate those claims.  As such, the district court will take another crack at whether the HHS mandate burdens the rights of the Gilardi brothers.

In the meantime, the decision represents yet another loss for the government and its promotion of the HHS mandate—a loss that will certainly be used in cases currently up on Petition before the U.S. Supreme Court (Conestoga Wood Specialties, Hobby Lobby, and Autocam).

AUL filed an amicus brief in the Gilardi case on behalf of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and other national medical organizations.  The brief demonstrated that that the life of a new human being begins at fertilization (conception), that “emergency contraception” has a post-fertilization effect that can prevent a new human being from implanting in the uterus, and that forcing employers to provide coverage for such drugs violates their constitutionally protected freedom of conscience.

For more information on life-affirming healthcare, visit AUL’s unique project, Real Healthcare Respects Life.