Family-Run Business Wins Battle Against Obama HHS Mandate
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/19/13 1:52 PM
A family-run business in Pennsylvania is the latest to beat the Obama administration’s HHS mandate in court. The controversial mandate compels businesses and organizations that are religiously-run to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman responded to the decision. His firm is helping Seneca Hardwood Lumber Co. in its case against the Obama administration.
He told LifeNews: “All Americans, including job creators and providers, should be free to live according to their faith rather than be forced into violating their own consciences. The court has done the right thing in issuing an order against the administration’s abortion pill mandate, just as many other courts have done. For the many family-run businesses affected by the mandate, the court stated it well: ‘the mandate’s requirements impose a substantial burden on their exercise of religion.’”
Bowman provided LifeNews with selected quotes from the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in Geneva College and The Seneca Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Sebelius:
p.16: “It is not, as defendants suggest, merely a question whether plaintiffs object to third parties’ decisions with respect to using or purchasing the objected to services. Instead, plaintiffs’ objection relates to whether the Heplers and SHLC will be forced to provide coverage for the objected to services in the first place. This is a quintessential substantial burden, and plaintiffs demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits with respect to the substantial burden issue.”
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
p. 18: “In light of the myriad exemptions to the mandate’s requirements already granted and conceding that the requirement does not include small employers similarly situated to SHLC, the requirement is ‘woefully underinclusive’ and therefore does not serve a compelling government interest.”
p. 20: “The court notes…that the scheme set forth in the proposed rules calls into serious question whether the mandate is the least restrictive means of achieving the government’s allegedly compelling interest.”