Supreme Court takes action on Obama's birth-control mandate

Little Sisters of the Poor is a 175-year old religious order that ministers to the elderly and provides for their needs.

The Supreme Court has sent back to the lower courts a case concerning the Obamacare mandate that non-church religious groups provide contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs at no cost to their employees.

The court did not decide whether or not the mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, essentially ordering the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious groups to work out a compromise with the Obama administration.

Zubik v. Burwell is the combined lawsuit of the Little Sisters, Priests for Life, and several Christian colleges that claimed providing birth control to employees via insurance plans was a violation of their religious beliefs based on the First Amendment.

An appeals court ruled against Little Sisters last year and upheld the so-called “abortion-pill mandate” contained in President Obama’s signature health-care law.

Reactions to the unanimous Supreme Court ruling Monday ranged from cautious optimism on the conservative side to indignation on the left:

"Sending it back to lower courts sounds like Pilate and Caesar with Jesus," evangelist and pro-life activist Alveda King told WND. "Seems like they want to wash their hands of it. The blood is on somebody's hands. The babies are still crying."

King is a personal petitioner in the related case of Priests for Life v. HHS. She is the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. and director of PFL's outreach to the African-American community.

Alliance Defending Freedom is also involved in the case representing several Christian colleges.

“Religious organizations have the freedom to peacefully operate according to their beliefs without fear of severe penalties by the government," said David Cortman, senior counsel for ADF, in a statement.

"The Supreme Court was right to protect the Christian colleges and other groups from having to pay fines or fill out forms authorizing the objectionable coverage," Cortman added. "The government has many other ways to ensure women are able to obtain these drugs without forcing people of faith to participate in acts that violate their deepest convictions. We look forward to addressing the remaining details as we advance these cases in the lower courts."

American Center for Law and Justice issued a statement calling the ruling "a significant victory for religious freedom."

"From the very beginning, we have been adamant that the Obama administration’s war against faith-based organizations squarely put religious liberty at great risk," said ACLJ founder Jay Sekulow. "It would have been ideal for the high Court to step in today and rule on the merits of the case. But its decision to instead vacate the troubling decisions in place by sending the cases back to lower courts for resolution amounts to a significant victory for religious freedom. We’re confident that, with the guidance offered by the high Court, a solution will be found to protect the religious freedom of these organizations."

Sekulow tweeted the following:

'Meddling in women's healthcare' humanists say

'The American Humanist Association rebuked the court for its decision not to come down hard against the Little Sisters of the Poor, accusing the court of "failing to uphold women's rights" and meddling in their "health care."

"The Supreme Court had the opportunity to stand up for the separation of church and state by giving women’s access to contraception priority over their employers’ religious beliefs," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the Humanist Association. "Instead the Court has delayed the decision, giving religious groups the opportunity to unjustly meddle with women’s right to healthcare.”

The Little Sisters is one of seven institutions fighting the mandate. Priests for Life is also among the resistors along with four Oklahoma Christian universities in Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell and one Pennsylvania Christian college in Geneva College v. Burwell.

'Not out of the woods yet'

"Today's action is another step forward in the cause of freedom because the court did not rule against it," King said. "We are not out of the woods yet because there may still be resistance from the government. But we believe that the government can pursue its objectives without forcing us to choose between following the law and following our faith.

"The case is about freedom and we are confident of final victory."

Dr. Alveda King

Little Sisters argued that the Obamacare mandate violates their “free exercise” rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

A broad array of parties – including more than 200 members of Congress and 20 states – filed briefs in January with the Supreme Court in support of the colleges and other nonprofits who oppose the mandate and its religious non-profit compliance mechanism.

The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception through their health plans under threat of heavy penalties.

Caring for elderly poor for 175 years

The Little Sisters are a 175-year-old religious order who have vowed to care for the elderly poor. The Little Sisters asked the Supreme Court for protection from a government mandate that already exempts one in three Americans, large corporations like Chevron, Exxon, and Pepsi and the U.S. military, as WND previously reported.

This case is about the basic rights of all Americans, King said.

“It’s about all of us,” she said. “If bureaucrats are allowed to dictate what we must believe, we are not free. And make no mistake, the HHS mandate is not a rule passed or even envisioned by Congress, it’s a regulation drawn up by unelected, unrepresentative people who think that their agenda is more important than our freedom. The government was wrong in the 1950s and 60s – it’s wrong again today."

But the Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism issued a statement Monday coming down firmly on the side of the Obama administration.

“We are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to send Zubik v. Burwell back to the lower courts, leaving key issues unresolved in the challenge to the religious non-profits’ accommodation under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception rule. As the lower courts rehear these cases, we hope they will conclusively rule for the government as did the majority of courts before the Supreme Court first took up this case," said Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, director of the center. "Women working for religious non-profits must have access to coverage for full contraceptive care.

"... Any future changes to the accommodation must ensure women’s full and seamless access to reproductive rights."