A brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition to President Obama’s pro-abortion agenda – which under Obamacare would require employers to fund abortion-inducing drugs for their employees no matter what their religion teaches about the killing of the unborn – warns that the government is on track to force Americans into its own mold regarding matters of faith.
“The story is told of a grizzled master sergeant who, reflecting on his years of service, said: ‘When I joined up, homosexuality was prohibited; now it’s tolerated; and I darn sure am getting out before it’s mandatory,'” explains a note accompanying the brief filed by constitutional expert Herb Titus of William J. Olson P.C. and Michael Connelly of the United States Justice Foundation.
“So it is with respect to homosexual and abortion rights. First, the goal is said to be tolerance. Then, governmental approval and support. Lastly, any pretense of tolerance disappears, and the coercive force of government is used to eliminate any vestige of opposition. The Obamacare contraception/abortion mandate demonstrates that our nation is at the end of phase two, moving into phase three.”
The brief was filed on behalf of Eberle Communications Group, D&D Unlimited, Joyce Meyer Ministries, Southwest Radio Bible Ministry, Daniel Chapter One, U.S. Justice Foundation, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Institute on the Constitution, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Policy Analysis Center.
It, along with dozens of other briefs, argues on behalf of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. and Hobby Lobby, two companies that have challenged Obama’s abortion-drug mandate. The cases are pending before the Supreme Court, with oral arguments expected over the coming weeks.
The legal experts explained that the brief is based on the original First Amendment text “that secures freedom of religion.”
That’s not the same as “freedom of worship,” which Obama often references, they explain.
“According to the cases that apply the religious tolerance doctrine, a person’s conscience may be overridden by laws that serve a compelling government interest,” the legal team says. “Under the First Amendment freedom of religion, a person’s conscience cannot be violated no matter how ‘compelling’ the government’s interest may be.”
The brief cites the authors of the Constitution.
“As its chief architect, it was [James] Madison, along with [Thomas] Jefferson, who understood that the First Amendment erected a jurisdictional barrier between matters that belonged to church government and matters that belonged to civil government of the state, the latter having absolutely no jurisdiction over duties owed to the Creator which, by nature, are enforceable only ‘by reason and conviction,'” the brief explains.
The legal team writes that the issue is about religion, “as it appears in the First Amendment, and as it appeared earlier in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights.”
“Unlike the First Amendment, the Virginia Declaration expressly defines religion as a duty owed to the Creator, which is enforceable only by reason, not by force. In a statute passed in 1785 by the Virginia General Assembly, the preamble declared that it would be a violation of the free exercise of religion if a law compelled a person to promote an opinion with which he disagreed. Our brief applies this principle to the contraceptive services mandate which compels the [Conestoga owners] to promote a government program of education and counseling encouraging women to use abortion-inducing contraceptives to reduce the risk of ‘unwanted pregnancies.'”
The Bible is full of references to the beginnings of life, notes the brief, which cites Job 33:4, “The spirit of the Lord hath made me, and the breath of the almighty hath given me life”; Isaiah 44:24, “Thus says the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things”; Revelation 4:11, “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for that has created all things, and for they pleasure they are and were created”; and Ecclesiastes 11:5, “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”
The brief warns that those who support the Obamacare’s “contraceptive services mandate understand that even if that mandate were struck down, the laws and judicial decisions governing abortion and access to all forms of contraception will remain unchanged by this litigation.”
“However, they insist that women will be harmed unless they can hand the bill for their contraceptive care to others to pay. Indeed, the fight for the contraceptive services mandate is viewed as part of a larger fight to coerce all Americans, and especially private businesses, to lose the freedom to make decisions about how to run their lives and businesses according to their best understanding of God’s guidance and direction.”
The brief states that “as detestable as this court’s rulings on abortion are viewed by Bible-believing Americans, this court had refrained from sanctioning mandatory participation in abortion.
“Should the laws of this land, in violation of the ‘free exercise’ jurisdictional principle of the First Amendment, require man to disobey God, it will fracture the nation in a ways that can scarcely be anticipated, for those Bible-believing Americans who believe that life begins at conception also believe that ‘We must obey God rather than man.'”
The brief says there are other issues to address, such as the law’s redefinition of the term “contraceptive” to include abortion-inducing drugs.
Also, the contraceptive mandate isn’t even in the Obamacare law. It was proposed by a panel appointed by the Institute of Medicine, a nongovernment agency that is not accountable to citizens.
The mandate then was adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services.
“In the opinion of this committee … the contraceptive mandate is required because a woman’s ‘well-being’ consists of a life of recreational sexual activity without risk of an unplanned pregnancy, and it is this opinion that HHS has made into law,” the attorneys explain.
Coerced support for a responsibility-free, sexually charged lifestyle is the government’s goal, Titus told WND in an interview.
“What they really are doing is basically promoting sex outside of marriage, as well as without restraint, a complete license with no responsibility,” he said. “It’s recreation … having fun without consequences.”
Titus called it “a death march for America.”
“People talk about a covenant with death. That’s precisely what’s occurring,” he said.