Corporate Accountability

TV (FOX News Channel): Religious organizations challenge contraception mandate in federal court

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

 

By Shannon Bream

December 10, 2013

 

Another challenge to the Health and Human Services contraception mandate landed in federal court Monday in a case brought by the group Priests for Life, along with some individual plaintiffs. 

 

They argue that being forced to provide no-cost access to all forms of contraception, including those they believe actually induce abortions, would violate their religious freedom.

 

After Monday’s hearing, Father Frank Pavone, National Director of PFL, said, “What we just saw in that courtroom is of Biblical proportions.”

 

The Obama administration doesn’t see it that way. Government attorneys have argued that there are exemptions for entities that are truly operating as religious organizations and can prove it. 

 

However, the plaintiff’s attorneys argue that even if they are able to qualify, they are still under an unacceptable burden: facilitating employee access to the contraception via a third-party vendor.

 

Pavone said the options are unacceptable, and warns the group will drop health insurance altogether if forced to comply with the mandate. “Where are the brakes?” Pavone asked, adding, “Where does it stop for the government to tell the church what it can and cannot do?”

 

Supporters of the mandate say the administration has worked to find balance.

 

“The Obama administration has, I think, made a very strong compromise trying to accommodate religious liberty interests while at the same time protecting the health of women,” said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center.

 

There are now more than 80 similar lawsuits pending across the country. Just last week, the University of Notre Dame and the Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS), both filed suit, as well.

 

“I think the Obama administration’s attempts to take religious freedom away from anyone are bound to fail,” said Matthew Bowman, the senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing FOCUS.

 

The lower courts considering the dozens of challenges to the HHS mandate may wait for guidance from the Supreme Court.

 

The justices have agreed to hear the cases of two for-profit organizations whose owners say their rights will be violated if they’re forced to comply. Though the newest lawsuits stem from faith-based organizations, that Supreme Court decision — due by June 2014 — could provide enormous legal precedent.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
April 24, 2026

How the Supreme Court will have a major impact on the economy this spring

CNN
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod spoke to CNN about big business at the Supreme Court. Read...
Corporate Accountability
May 26, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of FCC Enforcement Process

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Federal Communications...
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, Smita Ghosh
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission

In Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court is considering whether the FCC’s two-stage civil-enforcement process violates the Seventh Amendment.
Corporate Accountability
January 15, 2026

January Newsletter: CAC Keeps Up the Fight for Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development

In Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is considering a challenge to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s authority to...
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes