Supreme Court protects Pennsylvania charities from HHS mandate

Last updated on: June 30, 2015 at 6:30 pm by CNA Daily News

Supreme Court protects Pennsylvania charities from HHS mandate 2015-06-30T18:30:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., Jun 30, 2015 / 12:30 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an order protecting a group of Pennsylvania religious institutions from being required by the federal contraception mandate to violate their faith.

“Doesn't our government have something better to do than fight charities serving the poor?” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in a statement after the July 29 court order.

The Pennsylvania-based religious groups are among hundreds of plaintiffs challenging the federal HHS mandate, which requires employers to offer coverage of sterilization, contraception, and some drugs that can cause early abortions.

The organizations say they cannot provide the coverage, or otherwise facilitate it, without violating their religious beliefs.

With the stay from the Supreme Court, a lower court’s previous ruling is held back. In February, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the religious service organizations. The plaintiffs applied for an interim stay on the ruling, which was granted by the Supreme Court in April.

Now, longer-term relief has been granted while the case moves forward in the courts, temporarily absolving the religious groups from having to provide contraceptives and related products for employees if they notify the Department of Health and Human Services of their exemption. The government must ensure that the employees receive coverage for the products and procedures in the meantime.

The high court has yet to say if it will review the merits of the case in its next term.

The grant comes only days after the Supreme Court ruled that states must grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. The 5-4 decision for Obergefell v. Hodges overturned other lower-court rulings that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. With the ruling came a wave of concern over its implications on religious freedom.

Rassbach stressed that forcing religious employers to violate their deeply-held beliefs is unnecessary, adding that the legal precedent is on the side of the religious groups.

“The government has lots of ways to achieve its goals without penalizing religious groups who serve those in need,” he said. “Every time a religious ministry has taken this issue to the Supreme Court, the government has lost and the religious plaintiffs have been granted relief.”

Previous Post

June 30, 2015

Francis wishes Benedict XVI a good summer in Castel Gandolfo

Next Post

June 30, 2015 Supreme Court puts hold on Texas law regulating abortion clinics

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who dreamed about the sun, moon, and stars bowing to him?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Daniel Joseph Adam Elijah