Category: News Releases

Christian opposition to abortion pill mandate grows, two more colleges sue

Alliance Defending Freedom represents Grace College and Seminary, Biola University

NEWS RELEASE

Alliance Defending  Freedom

Attorney sound bite: Gregory S. Baylor

SOUTH BEND, Ind. — Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against the Obama administration Thursday on behalf of two evangelical Christian colleges: Grace College and Seminary in Indiana and Biola University in California. The lawsuit is the latest to challenge the administration’s unconstitutional mandate that faith-based employers provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs at no cost to employees regardless of religious or moral objections.

“Christian colleges should remain free to operate according to their deeply-held beliefs. Punishing religious people and organizations for freely exercising their faith is an assault on our most fundamental American freedoms,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor. “This mandate leaves religious employers with no real choice: you must either comply and abandon your religious freedom and conscience, or resist and be taxed for your faith. Every American should know that a government with the power to do this to anyone can do this–and worse–to everyone.”

“The Obama administration’s mandate forces us to act against our own doctrinal statement, which upholds the sanctity of human life,” said Biola University President Barry H. Corey. “It unjustly intrudes on our religious liberty as protected under the U.S. Constitution and makes a mockery of our attempts to live our lives according to our faith convictions, time-honored and long protected.”

“Government officials do not have the right to require religious organizations to act in a way contrary to deeply-held religious beliefs, nor do they have the right to define what constitutes the free exercise of religion,” added Grace College and Seminary President Ronald E. Manahan. “To determine that Grace College and Seminary is not ‘religious enough’ to qualify for an exemption from this mandate is an affront to the religious freedom and free conscience of dedicated Christian organizations across America.”

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have already filed three other lawsuits against the mandate: one on behalf of Geneva College and The Seneca Hardwood Lumber Company in Pennsylvania, one on behalf of Louisiana College in Louisiana, and one on behalf of Hercules Industries in Colorado, in which a federal judge issued an order preventing the mandate from being enforced against the family-run business. The lawsuits represent a large cross-section of Protestants and Catholics who object to the mandate.

The new lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Grace Schools v. Sebelius, argues that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First and Fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Attorney Jane Dall Wilson of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in Indianapolis is local counsel in the case. Biola University Legal Counsel Jerry Mackey is also participating in the case.

Grace College and Seminary is a private, Christian institution in Winona Lake, Ind., offering baccalaureate, master, and doctor degrees and drawing students from more than 20 countries. Biola University is a private, Christian university in La Mirada, Calif., with six schools that offer 145 academic programs, ranging from the B.A. to Ph.D, and is the first university in California to file suit against the mandate.

Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is an alliance-building legal ministry that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

CMA Physicians Compare HHS Position on Births to China’s in Comments Filed Opposing Contraceptives Mandate

NEWS RELEASE

Christian Medical Association

WASHINGTON, June 18, 2012 /Standard Newswire/ — The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA) has filed official comments opposing as “unlawful, unprecedented, unwise and un-American” a U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that forces virtually all health insurance plans in the country to provide free contraceptive pills, devices and surgeries on demand regardless of users’ ability to pay.

The CMA document deplores the fact that “The administration is instituting a decidedly un-American policy that (a) classifies pregnancy as a disease requiring mandated treatment and (b) advocates the prevention of child-bearing as a health care cost savings. Unlike communist leaders in countries like China, Americans historically have not viewed pregnancy as a disease or children as an unwelcome product posing a cost burden.”

The comments of CMA and other groups were filed with HHS before the June 19 deadline for public comments on the rule, which has generated nationwide protests over what opponents consider a frontal assault on religious freedom, since the rule does not exempt most religious employers who object to the drugs on moral grounds.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted, “The contraceptives and sterilization mandate affects all people no matter what their faith is, and it is an attack on our first and most precious rights. Religious freedom and respect for conscience are among the most important issues that all people of faith face. This is a battle we dare not lose.”

CMA Executive VP Dr. Gene Rudd added, “While researchers continue to debate whether certain mandated drugs labeled as contraceptive may actually end the life of a developing human embryo, the mandated drug Ella almost certainly has such a post-fertilization effect; it’s the only way to explain the effectiveness rates claimed for the drug. What we have learned during this debate over the potential abortifacient nature of certain contraceptives is that those with a social agenda will deceive to achieve.”

The Christian Medical Association document asserted that the HHS mandate is unlawful and unprecedented in that it violates abortion-related provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the law under which the mandate is enacted), federal laws protecting conscience rights and constitutional protections for religious liberty and just compensation.

CMA also noted that besides violating constitutional religious liberties, the mandate also “offers no accommodation options whatsoever to protect secular conscientious objectors.”

The CMA comments conclude, “The administration retains only two realistic options regarding this unlawful, unprecedented, unwise and un-American policy: rescind the policy or face defeat in the courts. The CMA encourages rescission of this policy in its entirety.”

Contact: Margie Shealy, VP for Communications, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, 423-844-1047; www.Freedom2Care.org

General Medical Council guideline criticized by Protection of Conscience Project

Unfair to impose “long-discredited policies of forced conversion and exclusion”

NEWS RELEASE

Protection of Conscience Project

The Protection of Conscience Project has expressed concern that the state physician regulator in the United Kingdom intends to  prosecute those who refuse to convert to the religious, moral or ethical systems it approves.  If actual conversion is not required, it appears that by forcing physicians to do what they believe to be wrong as a condition of practising medicine, the regulator “may simply be resurrecting the Test Act in modern professional dress.”

The criticisms appear in a Protection of Conscience Project submission to the General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom in response to the draft GMC guideline Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice.  The Project comments that “it would be unfair to impose on physicians long-discredited policies of forced conversion and exclusion that would be plainly unacceptable to other professions and to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.”

The Project submission points out that it would be hypocritical for the GMC to discipline objecting physicians who refuse to refer  for morally contested treatments, since they act on the same principles applied by the GMC in its policies on organ trafficking and assisted suicide.  Strong exception is taken to the suggestion that physicians act like bigots if they refuse to facilitate adultery, premarital sex, and morally contested services like the mutilation or amputation of healthy body parts or the killing of human embryos or fetuses.

In other respects, the Project expressed qualified agreement with the provisions of Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice and identified parts of the guideline requiring clarification.  Specifically, physicians

  • should do their best to notify patients and employers in advance of treatments to which they object for reasons of conscience, though they cannot be expected to anticipate every possible conflict;
  • should not refuse to provide treatment or care to a patient on the grounds that she has had a previous morally contested treatment;
  • must be prepared to treat “the health consequences of lifestyle choices” with which they disagree or to which they object (though not to provide morally contested treatments);
  • should disclose beliefs only when the disclosure is solicited by a patient, or when it is reasonable to believe that it would be welcomed by the patient;
  • should limit discussion of beliefs to what is relevant to the patient’s care and treatment, taking into account the importance of dialogue that is responsive to the needs of the patient.

The Project cautioned the GMC that physicians should not be discplined or criticized for a conversation naturally arising from the disclosure of conscientious objection, since disclosure is required by its guidelines.  It also warned that an adverse emotional response by a patient is not necessarily evidence of professional misconduct.

The Protection of Conscience Project is a non-profit, non-denominational initiative that advocates for freedom of conscience in health care. The Project does not take a position on the morality or desirability of controversial procedures or services.

Hercules versus Obama

ADF attorneys file suit against administration’s ‘abortion pill’ mandate on behalf of Denver’s Hercules Industries

NEWS RELEASE

Monday, April 30, 2012

Alliance Defence  Fund

ADF attorney sound bite: Matt Bowman

DENVER — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys representing a private Denver employer filed a federal lawsuit Monday against the Obama administration over its mandate that forces the family-owned business to violate its religious beliefs by requiring it to offer insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception.

Because the company, Hercules Industries, would be required to begin offering the new coverage when its self-insured plan renews on Nov. 1, the case is one of the only ones in the nation requesting a court order that would halt the mandate within the next three months.

“The government shouldn’t punish people of faith for making decisions in accordance with their faith,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “Every American should know that a government with the power to do this to anyone can do this–and worse–to everyone. The abortion pill mandate unconstitutionally coerces the leadership of Hercules Industries to violate their religious beliefs and consciences under the threat of heavy fines and penalties. That is simply not acceptable in America.”

Hercules owners William Newland, Paul Newland, James Newland, and Christine Ketterhagen, and its vice-president, Andrew Newland, are practicing and believing Catholics. They desire to run the company, an HVAC manufacturer, in a manner that reflects their sincerely held religious beliefs, including their belief that God requires respect for the sanctity of human life. Their lawsuit, Newland v. Sebelius, is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

In February, ADF attorneys filed suit against the mandate on behalf of two private Christian colleges, Geneva College in Pennsylvania and Louisiana College in Louisiana.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Bishops Issue Call To Action To Defend Religious Liberty: Urge strong lay involvement

Outline threats to First Freedom at all levels of government and abroad

Call upon dioceses to pursue religious liberty fortnight, June 21-July 4

NEWS RELEASE

US Conference of Catholic Bishops

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops have issued a call to action to defend religious liberty and urged laity to work to protect the First Freedom of the Bill of Rights. They outlined their position in “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.” The document was developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), approved for publication by the USCCB Administrative Committee March 13, and published in English and Spanish April 12.

“We have been staunch defenders of religious liberty in the past. We have a solemn duty to discharge that duty today,” the bishops said in the document, “… for religious liberty is under attack, both at home and abroad.”

The document lists concerns that prompt the bishops to act now.  Among concerns are:

• The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate forcing all employers, including religious organizations, to provide and pay for coverage of employees’ contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs even when they have moral objections to them. Another concern is HHS’s defining which religious institutions are“religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty.

• Driving Catholic foster care and adoption services out of business. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia and Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities adoption or foster care services out of business by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.

• Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. Despite years of excellent performance by the USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contract specifications to require USCCB to provide or refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching. Religious institutions should not be disqualified from a government contract based on religious belief, and they do not lose their religious identity or liberty upon entering such contracts. Recently, a federal court judge in Massachusetts turned religious liberty on its head when he declared that such a disqualification is required by the First Amendment—that the government violates religious liberty by allowing Catholic organizations to participate in contracts in a manner consistent with their beliefs on contraception and abortion.

The statement lists other examples such as laws punishing charity to undocumented immigrants; a proposal to restructure Catholic parish corporations to limit the bishop’s role; and a state university’s excluding a religious student group because it limits leadership positions to those who share the group’s religion.

Other topics include the history and deep resonance of Catholic and American visions of religious freedom, the recent tactic of reducing freedom of religion to freedom of worship, the distinction between conscientious objection to a just law, and civil disobedience of an unjust law, the primacy of religious freedom among civil liberties, the need for active vigilance in protecting that freedom, and concern for religious liberty among interfaith and ecumenical groups and across partisan lines.

The bishops decry limiting religious freedom to the sanctuary.

“Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans,” they said. “Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith?”

“This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue,” they said.

The bishops highlighted religious freedom abroad.

“Our obligation at home is to defend religious liberty robustly, but we cannot overlook the much graver plight that religious believers, most of them Christian, face around the world,” they said.“The age of martyrdom has not passed. Assassinations, bombings of churches, torching of orphanages—these are only the most violent attacks Christians have suffered because of their faith in Jesus Christ. More systematic denials of basic human rights are found in the laws of several countries, and also in acts of persecution by adherents of other faiths.”

The document ends with a call to action.

“What we ask is nothing more than that our God-given right to religious liberty be respected. We ask nothing less than that the Constitution and laws of the United States, which recognize that right, be respected.” They specifically addressed several groups: the laity, those in public office, heads of Catholic charitable agencies, priests, experts in communication, and urged each to employ the gifts and talents of its members for religious liberty.

The bishops called for “A Fortnight for Freedom,” the two-week period from June 21 to July 4—beginning with the feasts of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher and ending with Independence Day—to focus “all the energies the Catholic community can muster” for religious liberty. They also asked that, later in the year, the feast of Christ the King be “a day specifically employed by bishops and priests to preach about religious liberty, both here and abroad.”

Members of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty include

  • Archbishop-designate William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman
  • Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington
  • Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap, of Philadelphia
  • Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory of Atlanta
  • Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St. Paul–Minneapolis
  • Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi, of Mobile, Alabama
  • Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle
  • Bishop John O. Barres of Allentown, Pennsylvania
  • Bishop Daniel E. Flores of Brownsville, Texas
  • Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix
  • Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois

Consultants include

  • Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles
  • Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton. California
  • Bishop Joseph P. McFadden of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
  • Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa
  • Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne–South Bend, Indiana

Media contact only:

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh Office: 202-541-3200 Mobile : 301-325-7935 Email