Government advocacy for unlimited access to abortion has surged under Barack Obama's administration, and at one point the National Right to Life Committee uncovered documents revealing the president was even more dedicated to abortion at any time for any reason than even the National Abortion Rights Action League.
Now, the District of Columbia is proposing a Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment that would prohibit employers from "discriminating" for any reason over the issue of "reproductive health," including abortion.
It "is intended to force employers to provide health insurance for elective abortions regardless of the employers' beliefs or convictions," according to the Alliance Defending Freedom.
ADF has joined with the March for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Charlotte Lozier Institute, Concerned Women for America, National Right to Life Committee and Family Research Council to write a letter to D.C. officials strongly urging them to drop the plan.
TRENDING: Jihad against Christians is due to … climate change?
Earlier this month, a formal protest developed in California on behalf of several churches whose leaders charge the state simply changed its health insurance practices to force them to pay for abortions. Casey Mattox, an attorney working on the California case, said forcing a church" to be party to elective abortion is one of the utmost-imaginable assaults on our most fundamental American freedoms."
Read the definitive explanation on how to make a community "Abortion Free."
The letter regarding the proposed D.C. law is addressed to Phil Mendelson, chairman of the District of Columbia Council in Washington.
"We urge the council to reject this ill-fated bill that has no hope of being upheld, will waste taxpayer dollars, and could expose district employees to personal liability for enforcement of a clearly illegal law," the letter states.
"Both the bill's chief sponsor, Council member [David] Grosso, and virtually every person who submitted testimony in support of the bill at the public hearing confirmed that the chief aim of this bill is to force objecting employers to provide insurance coverage of all 'reproductive health decision[s].' Religious employers, particularly the Archdiocese of Washington, were singled out by Rep. Grosso and others as examples of the need to impose this mandate on their health insurance plans."
The letter, however, warns district officials the bill would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits actions that substantially burden a person's exercise of religion. Any restrictions must demonstrate a compelling interest and be the "least restrictive means" to reach a particular objective.
It "would appear to require employers to include coverage of even elective surgical abortion – and would require those employers to hire persons who reject the organization's religious views on abortion," the letter says.
The proposal also would violate the First Amendment's freedom of association and free speech clauses, the groups contend.
"Just as a nonprofit organization supporting abortion might believe it necessary to ensure that its employees were not participating in the March for Life or other pro-life activism, or an organization advocating for veganism might believe its message cannot be effectively communicated by someone who eats meat, a pro-life organization must be free to choose to expend its resources to employ those whose words and actions uphold and do not detract from the organization's mission," the letter says.
"It is clear that the committee anticipates that this bill will burden religious and other pro-life employers, indeed as the hearing demonstrated that is its very aim."
The letter cites the U.S. Supreme Court's Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell and Hobby Lobby Stores cases, which held that employers cannot be forced to pay for abortion in violation of their faith.
In the California case, Mattox said the government "has no business forcing pro-life organizations to hire those who oppose their mission or to force any employer to pay for abortions."
"As the video of the committee hearing demonstrates, this is a cynical bill targeted at religious and other pro-life groups. It is illegal and doomed to defeat. The district should spare its taxpayers the expense of defending it."
California's move came only a couple of weeks ago.
The state simply changed its state health insurance rules to require that churches pay for elective abortions, drawing protest from some of the largest pro-life legal teams in the nation and a formal complaint.
"Forcing a church to be party to elective abortion is one of the utmost-imaginable assaults on our most fundamental American freedoms," said Mattox.
He said California "is flagrantly violating the federal law that protects employers from being forced into having abortion in their health insurance plans."
In the California case, seven churches filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights calling abortion "a grave moral evil" and objecting to "being morally complicit through the provision of insurance coverage for abortion to their employees."
The complaint cites a letter from the California Department of Managed Health Care to private health care insurers declaring "all health care plans issued in California must immediately cover elective abortions."
"The insurers were instructed to amend their policies to remove any limitations on health coverage for abortions, such as excluding coverage for 'voluntary' or 'elective' abortions or limiting coverage to 'therapeutic' or 'medically necessary' abortions," explains the complaint, which is joined by the Life Legal Defense Foundation.
"Insurers have confirmed to some of the churches that these changes have already been made in their plans over their objections," the letter says.
But the state refused to include an exemption for "religious employers."
Â