The non-profit group March for Life could be exempted from the contraceptive mandate, even as it opposes abortion on ethical, and not religious grounds.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Richard J. Leon took sides with the nonprofit, in the group's challenge of a birth control provision under the Obama administration.
Insurance coverage for contraception is not required of employers, despite their objections being moral and not religious, Leon ruled [pdf] Monday, Aug.31.
"This is nothing short of regulatory favoritism," the judge wrote in his opinion.
The non-profit, non-religious, pro-life group March for Life was founded in 1974 in protest against the first anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The group's position on abortion is similar to that of religious organizations, but not, according to Leon, unique to such groups. The group holds anti-abortion marches each year, following the decision of the Supreme Court to legalize the right to abortion. March for Life believes that life begins at conception, and liens contraception to abortion.
The nonprofit simply does not want to buy a health plan that offers services such as methods of contraception. Last year, it sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS), and called Obama's contraceptive mandate unconstitutional because it exempted only religious groups, churches and synagogues. The mandate did not exempt groups with similar advocacies, but based on ethical, and not religious grounds.
According to Leon, the government had violated the nonprofit's rights under the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act - which lays out the procedural standards for federal regulatory agencies.
The judge further noted that apart from religious tolerance, HSS has provided to principled basis for its distinction. While the HSS can exempt religious employers from the contraceptive mandate in respect to their precepts against abortion, it should also be able to do so with March for Life in that same respect.
The non-profit law firm Alliance Defending Freedom that represented March for Life called Leon's decision a "groundbreaking development in litigation," making this the first time a judge sided with a group opposing contraceptive mandate based on moral and not religious basis.
The government is, however, likely to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Court.
