Cosmo is Upset That Pro-Life Women May be Deprived of Abortion Pills

National   |   Sarah Zagorski   |   Sep 4, 2015   |   5:48PM   |   Washington, DC

Cosmopolitan magazine’s senior political writer, Jill Filipovic, has taken her love for abortion one step further by claiming that the ruling in the March for Life case will determine whether members of the non-profit organization will have access to abortion pills. The reason her claim is outrageous and completely irrelevant is because none of the people who work at March for Life actually want abortion pills, since they are 100 percent pro-life.

On August 31st, a federal court issued an order in the March for Life v. Burwell case that prohibits the Obama administration from enforcing its abortion-pill mandate against the organization. The pro-life legal group, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said the order is a significant legal victory for pro-life organizations because it is the first one to be granted in favor of a group opposed to the mandate for reasons based on moral convictions rather than religious ones.

In an article for CNS News, ADF Senior Council Matt Bowman argued that Filipovic believes everyone is pro-abortion, even those who are leaders in the pro-life movement. Bowman said, “Filipovic’s real outrage is that anyone—anywhere—would refuse to have abortion and birth control shoved right into their bedrooms … you know, just in case they secretly want it. To an abortion extremist, everyone—every pro-life leader in the world—secretly wants to abort babies (and sell their parts).”


He added, “Filipovic even goes so far to insist that a pro-life group must hire people who go on “privately” having abortions without any remorse. She insists we “shouldn’t assume that every employee of a mission-driven organization agrees with the mission.”

In her article, Filipovic said the following about the ruling: “This ruling takes away the ability for women like that to get the best medical care possible. And employee health plans often don’t just apply to the employees themselves, but to their spouses and children. Now the wife of someone who works at March for Life won’t be able to get an IUD if she wants one unless she covertly pays hundreds or even thousands of dollars out of pocket; the college-age daughter of a March for Life employee won’t be able to go on the pill and have it covered under the insurance plan she relies on because of her mother’s moral beliefs.”

Bowman concludes by explaining that Filipovic’s logic is extreme and when applied to other situations, it doesn’t make good sense. He explained, “Using the Cosmo column’s logic, an atheist, non-profit advocacy organization that exists to zealously warn people of the harm of going to church cannot refuse to hire people who go to church. The First Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court disagree. The court has ruled many times that the freedom of speech and association lets non-profit advocacy groups hire people who live by the mission of the group. It’s just common sense.”

As LifeNews previously reported, ADF applauded the federal court order and said: “Pro-life organizations should not be forced into betraying the very values they were established to advance. This is especially true of March for Life, which was founded to uphold life, not to assist in taking it. The government has no right to demand that organizations provide health insurance plan options that explicitly contradict their mission.”