fbpx

Wheaton College sues Obama for ‘contraception mandate’

[additional-authors]
July 18, 2012

Wheaton College is announcing this morning that it will filed suit in federal court to enjoin President Obama’s so-called “” title=”Christianity Today” target=”_blank”>Christianity Today:

“This morning, the Board of Trustees filed a lawsuit in the Washington, D.C. District Court opposing the mandate, which, if enacted, would force the College to violate its religious beliefs or pay severe fines,” Ryken wrote in an e-mail to Wheaton’s faculty and staff. “We are joining with Catholic University of America in order to demonstrate that a deep concern for the sanctity of human life and a strong belief in the importance of religious freedom are areas of commonality that transcend our theological differences.”

Ryken said that The list of approved contraceptives includes “abortifacient ‘morning after’ and ‘week after’ drugs, presumably referring to contraceptives such as Plan B and Ella.

“I have every hope that Wheaton College will continue to provide excellent health care to all of its employees,” he said in the e-mail. “However, we stand to face punitive fines for not complying with the HHS regulations as of January 1, 2013.”

The mandate goes into effect August 1, though most religious institutions have another year to comply. But for non-church faith-based organizations whose insurance plans on February 10 did include contraceptives, the mandate comes into effect on or after August 1.

I’m interested to see how these lawsuits shake out.

Courts are not likely to find that the contraception requirement violates the First Amendment. History with challenges to similar state laws suggests as much—in large part because freedom of religion does not exempt religious conduct from generally applicable laws.

However, it may well violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires a federal inaction imposing a substantial burden on religious practice to pass strict scrutiny. Is the contraception mandate really the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government purpose?

With lawsuits by religious institutions continuing to accrue, we’ll soon see.

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Sushi Day Recipes with Marisa Baggett

Whether you’re a longtime sushi lover or a newbie to preparing this creative cuisine, Baggett’s recipes are a delicious way to mark the holiday.

What Antisemitism Requires of Us

The current Jewish debate cannot end with a choice between fighting antisemites and strengthening Jewish life. Both are necessary, but neither fully answers what this moment requires.

Is History Asking Too Much of Us?

The question for the Jewish people today is not merely whether we believe in the future but whether we are willing to become the kind of people that the future requires.

Rosner’s Domain | Can Israel’s Image Be Fixed?

Israelis view themselves as fighting for survival, just, fair, moral and brave, while the rest of the world sees something else entirely, viewing Israel as a country that has lost its brakes, destabilizing the order and running amok without justification.

Nothing to Fear but Fear

If I toss out a can of baked beans that expired one day earlier for fear of botulism, what do you think goes through my mind when it comes to bears, mountain lions, sharks and rattlesnakes?

The Many-States Solution

As we weigh the benefits and downsides of a potential two-state solution, the unguaranteed but plausible prospect of an unprecedented regional peace should be considered as part of that discussion.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.