Obamacare’s contraception and abortion pill law stance on insurance coverage was struck down by a federal judge for the clause, ‘exemption only to religious organizations’. The nonprofit group ‘March for Life’ alleged that not only religious but, those who do not morally accept pregnancy termination or means to prevent the same, should be exempted from insurance policies providing abortion inducing medicines and contraceptives. The District Judge of U.S. Richard Leon ruled in favor of the organization.
He stated that those who are against Obamacare’s specific ruling on the basis of moral belief or faith are free of its obligations. Matt Bowman represented the March for Life, and is associated with Alliance Defending Freedom as senior legal counsel. He said that the ruling can now encourage others to opt for exemption, than being pressurized by the Government into something they detested or did not support. The provision seemed to violate the clause regarding equal protection, Fifth Amendment.
It was done away with because of its unconstitutional nature. Washington did step down from its contraceptive mandate, but it had fought tooth and nail with other institutions to force this requirement on them. However, the administration had to bite the bullet at many instances like the case of U.S. Supreme Court Hobby Lobby. The Judge opined that HHS claims to protect religious beliefs, but it is actually safeguarding sanctity of life, a moral philosophy.
Why March of Life Was Exempted from Abortion-Pill Mandate?
HHS could be genuine about abortion objection, given the religiously motivated employers. However, HHS has turned faulty in assuming this thought is only applicable to religious organization, but it is not so. Bowman said that March for life lives on principles of pro-life and its governing ethics, which has become the corporate dogma. The group staunchly is anti-abortion. But, the claim that their employees are also opposing contraception is understating the degree of the objection.
March of Life employees do not wish any coverage on abortion, neither want to use abortion pills ever. Matt said that the group was holding similar belief to religious organizations, so they should also be counted in for the exemption of insurance coverage for specific abortion causing products. The Judge found that non-exemption of March for Life only because it is not religious is completely regulatory favoritism. Their employees believe on a system, and it should be respected as fundamental right.
The Judge held his opinion in support of March for life, saying that if the HHS’s purpose is to oblige the religious sentiments of employers then even the relevant nonprofit groups should have their sentiments valued. The ADF in its report said that this was the first kind of order that supported an organization in opposition to the pro-life mandate about moral conviction other than religion. The March for Life has been seeking this right since July 2014, and hold pro-life march in Washington every year.
Are Moral Beliefs Stronger than the Government’s Law?
Many are hounding Obamacare mandate as a forceful injunction for employers into insurance coverage of abortion pill, contraception and sterilization over their moral convictions. The employers are being threatened on enduring heavy penalties for finance via the IRS. Bowman said that these organizations must not be forced to betray their values on which they were based. March for Life was carrying the notion to save lives and not to take the same. The Government does not have any right to ask groups for insurance plan options, which do not stand up to their mission.
This group was formed after Supreme Court’s ruling for abortion legalization in 1973. Its existence grounds on anti-abortion and other moral beliefs, which forbids the organization from adhering to health insurance coverage offered to the employees. Attorneys and ADF are projecting several cases that are focused on the abortion pill mandate, on the proposition that Americans must not be coerced by Government to come away from deepest conviction and submitting to baseless mandates.