Nonprofits had their first victory in the contraceptive and abortifacient mandate at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted them preliminary injunction before their case goes to the Supreme Court.
The federal court panel comprising of three judges sided with the plaintiffs who included Dordt College, Cornerstone University, Heartland Christian College (HCC), and CNS ministries in two rulings.
Upholding a lower court decision that recognized the plaintiffs' right to religious exercise, the Appeals court ruled that if the groups thought that the mandate went contrary to their deeply held beliefs, then it did. The court also cited Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling to substantially back their decision.
"CNS and HCC [two of the plaintiffs] face the same consequences for noncompliance as did the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby," the judges wrote in the opinion.
The colleges had asserted during the hearing that "both the contraceptive mandate and the accommodation process impose a substantial burden on their exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993."
"Religious beliefs need not be 'acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others' to deserve protection... The question here is not whether CNS and HCC have correctly interpreted the law, but whether they have a sincere religious belief that their participation in the accommodation process makes them morally and spiritually complicit in providing abortifacient coverage. Their affirmative answer to that question is not for us to dispute," the judges noted.
"The government does not dispute the sincerity of CNS and HCC's religious beliefs. When sincerity is not in dispute, we must consider the religious belief or exercise at issue and determine whether the government has placed substantial pressure, i.e., a substantial burden, on the religious objector to engage in conduct that violates the religious belief or to abstain from engaging in conduct that is required by that belief."
The mandate presently in practice necessitates Form 700 or an HHS notice to be sent to the Health and Human Services (HHS) by the non-profit employers, which then arranges for the objectionable drug coverage to the employees.
The nonprofits say that this accommodation still makes them complicit in providing drugs that are not justifiable according to their beliefs. Failing to comply with the current regulations make the nonprofits liable to fines, which the court said would "indirectly provide, trigger, and facilitate" the contraceptive and abortion-inducing drug cover denied by the employer in the first place.
The decision by 8th Circuit Court differs from other appeals courts' ruling that said the government's present measures of accommodation were sufficient in enabling nonprofits to carry out their religious duties, despite grievances raised by several groups.
The opinion said that government could "make contraceptives available to employees through its own healthcare exchanges," as a means to apply the "least restrictive means" to provide healthcare to employees, thus also protecting the nonprofits' religious freedom as prescribed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
