The HHS Mandate Loses Again

Last updated on: January 24, 2017 at 5:13 pm by Frank Weathers

The HHS Mandate Loses Again 2017-01-24T17:13:10-05:00 Frank Weathers

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.

This time to a couple of private, religious universities in the state of Texas, and a seminary in Pennsylvania. Good news from the front, via The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Washington, D.C. – Today a Houston federal court delivered a major blow to the controversial HHS mandate ruling in favor of East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University. In a 46-page opinion, the court ruled that the federal mandate requiring employers to provide employees with abortion-causing drugs and devices violates federal civil rights laws, and issued an injunction against the mandate. Religious plaintiffs have now won injunctions in 9 out of 12 such cases involving non-profit entities challenging the mandate.

“The government doesn’t have the right to decide what religious beliefs are legitimate and which ones aren’t,” said Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and lead attorney for East Texas Baptist and Houston Baptist Universities. “In its careful opinion, the Court recognized that the government was trying to move across that forbidden line, and said “No further!”

I thought you said this was a fait accompli…

In its opinion, the federal court specifically rejected the government’s argument that it evaluate the Universities’ beliefs: “The religious organization plaintiffs have shown a sincerely held religious belief that the court cannot second-guess.”

The decision is part of a recent groundswell of cases decided against the government. In nine of the twelve cases decided thus far, federal district courts across the country have issued injunctions against the mandate.

“The government has enforced the health care reform law very unevenly, handing out exemptions to those it sees as its allies,” stated Rassbach. “Perhaps the worst part of the government’s approach is that it seems to have decided that religious institutions are the only ones not to get an exemption.”

Also participating as plaintiff in the case is Westminster Theological Seminary, a Reformed Protestant seminary based in Philadelphia. Westminster is represented by Kenneth Wynne of Wynne & Wynne, LLP.

From Judge Rosenthal’s hand,

“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279, 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). The same is true for violations of RFRA; showing a likelihood of success on the merits shows irreparable injury. O Centro, 389 F.3d 973, 995 (10th Cir. 2004), aff’d, O’Centro, 546 U.S. at 439 (“[The plaintiff] would certainly suffer an irreparable harm assuming of course that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its RFRA claim.”); see also Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Sebelius, 904 F. Supp. 2d 106, 129 (D.D.C. 2012); Legatus v. Sebelius, 901 F.Supp. 2d 980, 978 (E.D. Mich 2012).

The plaintiffs’ injury outweighs the government’s injury if an injunction is granted. Granting the injunction preserves the status quo, which the government has failed to show a compelling interest in changing. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese, 2013 WL 6579764 (citing Cornish v. Dudas, 540 F.Supp.2d 61, 65 (D.D.C.2008)); see also Tyndale House Publishers, 904 at 29–30 (D.D.C. 2012). The public interest weighs in favor of granting the injunction. Protecting constitutional rights and the rights under RFRA are in the public’s interest. “Congress [has] obligated itself to explicitly exempt later-enacted statutes from RFRA, which is conclusive evidence that RFRA trumps later federal statutes when RFRA has been violated.” Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1114, 1146. This is why some have equated RFRA to a constitutional right. Id. Having decided not to explicitly exempt the ACA from RFRA, it is in the public’s interest to enjoin the application of federal statutes that violate RFRA. The plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction preventing the enforcement of the mandate and accommodation to them, their plans, their TPAs, and their issuers.

****

The government is enjoined from applying or enforcing the regulations that require the plaintiffs, their health plans, TPAs, or issuers, to provide or execute the self-certification forms that enable or require the TPA or issuer to provide health insurance coverage for the plaintiffs’ employees for FDA-approved emergency contraceptive devices, products, or services under the requirements imposed in 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4), Pub. L. 11-148, § 1563(e)-(f), as well as the application of the penalties found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D & 4980H, and 29 U.S.C. § 1132. An order of injunction will separately issue.

Religious plaintiffs are beating the government in the courts, 9-3? A pretty good record, that, as the SCOTUS date in March for the for-profit plaintiffs (Hobby Lobby, and Conestoga Wood Products) looms ever larger.

Three cheers for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act!

Previous Post

December 27, 2013

In Praise Of A Catholic Christmas Holiday Favorite: Mincemeat Pie UPDATED

Next Post

December 27, 2013 Duck Dynasty Rises Again (The First World May Exhale Now)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog News Conversion Story Culture Learning Living Nature Prayer Uncategorized Working

Select a Month June 2016 May 2016 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 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the primary form of transportation in Biblical times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Chariot Horse Donkey Camel