An Important Issue of Religious Freedom
HHS MANDATE OVERVIEW
- “The cases challenging the HHS Mandate are about whether America will remain a pluralistic society that sustains a robust religious liberty for Americans of all faiths.”
- “The Mandate departs sharply from the Nation’s historic bipartisan tradition that protects religious liberty, particularly in the context of funding abortion.”
- “The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment require that the government respect religious liberty by protecting all entities with sincerely held religious convictions from providing, or otherwise enabling, the objectionable coverage required by the HHS Mandate.”
--from Christian Legal Society Brief
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, challenging the HHS Mandate. The Court held that the Government violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) when it threatened religious owners of for-profit corporations with multi-million dollar fines if they did not pay for coverage of drugs they believe may terminate human life. CLS filed a brief explaining why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the religious owners and their corporations.
- Christian Legal Society’s Work Against The HHS Mandate
- The HHS Mandate In The Supreme Court
- The HHS Mandate In The Appeals Courts By Federal Circuit
- Why The HHS Mandate Violates Religious Liberty
- Why The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Is Vital
- The Little Sisters of the Poor
Click to listen to a podcast of Kim Colby & Stanley Carlson-Thies discussing the vital importance of RFRA.
Watch the outstanding video below "Faces of Free Exercise" produced by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.