By Susan Duclos
Via The Beckett Fund For Religious Liberty
“There is no ‘Trust us changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution.” — Judge Cogan
For Immediate Release: December 6, 2012
Media Contact: Emily Hardman, 202.349.7224
Washington, D.C. — In a landmark ruling
against the HHS Mandate, yesterday a federal judge ruled against the
government holding that the supposed “safe harbor” was inadequate to
protect religious organizations from suffering imminent harm.
“We are pleased the court recognized the significant harm that the mandate is causing right now,” said Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. ”Religious
organizations that object to the mandate are subject to private
lawsuits, as well as being faced with critical budgeting,
and health insurance decisions in the face of millions of dollars in
fines. Truly the ‘safe harbor’ is neither a harbor nor safe.”
The judge concluded
that “There is no ‘Trust us changes are coming’ clause in the
Constitution.” The court further stated that “ignoring the speeding
train that is coming toward plaintiffs in the hope that it will stop
might well be inconsistent with the fiduciary duties that plaintiffs’
directors or officers owe to their members.”
There are now 40 separate lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate, which is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). The Becket Fund led the charge against
the unconstitutional HHS mandate, and currently represents: Hobby
Lobby, Wheaton College, East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist
University, Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian University, the
Eternal Word Television Network, and Ave Maria University.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is
a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free
expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians.
For 18 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field
of church-state law. The Becket Fund recently won a 9-0 victory
in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of
“the most important religious liberty cases in a half century.”
