Court rules against nursing-facility owner in HHS mandate case
March 01, 2013
A US district court judge in Colorado has refused to halt the implementation of the HHS mandate against an evangelical Protestant who owns and operates assisted-living centers and nursing homes.
“This mandate requires me and the business I own, built, and operate with God’s blessing to cover abortion-inducing drugs in violation of my religious beliefs,” said Stephen Briscoe before the court decision. “I built this business and should be free to run it according to my values and faith. Washington politicians should not be able to run roughshod over the God-given freedom to live and do business according to my faith.”
“Secular, for-profit corporations do not ‘exercise religion,’” ruled Judge Wiley Young Daniel, a Clinton appointee. The mandate, he added, “has a secular purpose, does not advance or inhibit religion, and does not cause excessively entanglement with religion. Thus, there is no violation of the Establishment Clause.”
- You Can’t Assist Seniors without Abortion-Drug Coverage (National Review Online)
- Full text of Briscoe decision
- Court Refuses TRO Against Contraceptive Coverage Mandate In Challenge By For-Profit Senior Care Companies (Religion Clause)
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: unum -
Mar. 03, 2013 7:51 AM ET USA
SCOTUS here we come! Federal judges with the audacity to rule on what constitutes "religion" and "freedom of religion" are assuring that the Court must rule on First Amendment religious freedom issues. They are able to cite only the content of government regulations and the opinions of other judges, rather than definitive interpretation of the Constitution. SCOTUS must rule on this issue!