Skip to comments.Christian Automotive Dealership Seeks Exemption from Obamacare Abortion Pill Mandate
Posted on 02/02/2014 3:46:45 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
HASTINGS, Minn. Attorneys with a nationally-recognized Christian legal group have filed a lawsuit on behalf of a car dealership in Minnesota that is seeking an exemption from what has become known as the abortion pill mandate in Obamacare.
The Liberty Institute of Plano, Texas filed the suit on Wednesday on behalf of Hastings Automotive, Inc. and Hastings Chrysler Center, along with their owner, Doug Erickson, who is a Christian. The organization notes that Ericksons beliefs as a Christian prevent him from being involved in acts that destroy human life.
Plaintiffs base their challenge on their sincerely held religious belief that life begins at conception and certain of the FDA-approved contraceptive methods, such as emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as certain intrauterine devices (IUDs), can destroy a human embryo, the federal complaint outlines. Plaintiffs believe that it is immoral and sinful for them to provide a group health plan that includes coverage for such contraceptive methods.
The lawsuit also outlines Ericksons testimony as a businessman whose first commitment is to Jesus Christ.
Erickson characterizes the work he does through the dealerships as marketplace ministry, by which he seeks to serve Christ first and foremost and show the light of Christ to those with whom he comes in contact, such as customers and employees, it explains. Since Erickson dedicated the dealerships to Christ, Plaintiffs have seen a marked improvement in customer satisfaction, employee engagement, and business performance.
Ericksons dealership includes an on-site pastor and regular voluntary prayer meetings, and the business also financially supports Total Life Care Centers in Minnesota, which are multi-site pregnancy care centers that help abortion-minded women choose life.
Because Erickson is a devout Christian, he believes that he should not be forced to cover drugs that are considered abortifacients in violation of his faith. Liberty Counsel agrees.
The government should not be able to coerce faith-based, for-profit businesses to violate their religious beliefs, said Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys. This mandate illegally and unconstitutionally forces our client to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs that form the very foundation for his work as a businessman.
The organization is thus seeking both a preliminary and permanent injunction for Hastings Automotive, Inc. and Hastings Chrysler Center from the abortion pill mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear argument in March surrounding two similar challenges to the mandate, which could impact businesses nationwide: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.
The Obama administration had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in September in an effort to force the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby to comply with the abortion pill mandate in Obamacare. It asked the court to overturn a preliminary injunction that was granted to the company this past July.
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, the plaintiff in the second case that was accepted, filed suit in December 2012 against the mandate, stating that it has never provided insurance coverage for medications that induce abortions, and doesnt plan on doing so. However, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush rejected the corporations request for an injunction, stating that for-profit businesses that are secular in nature cannot be considered religious entities, and are thus not entitled to an exemption. The 3rd Circuit likewise rejected the injunction, which resulted in an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In Hillsdale Michigan. Glory to God Automotive.
Shackelford hasn’t been in the press much lately. A few years ago he had a string of high profile losses. They did win the cheerleader case, but wasn’t it in state court?
There is no mandate for the obligatory inclusion of “free” birth control pharmaceuticals in the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010”. None. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Not anywhere in the bill. There is a little catchall phrase, “as the Secretary of Health and Human Services may direct”, permitting the WRITING of pertinent regulations, but not in the law itself. The inclusion of all these “mandated” stipulations is dependent entirely upon the whim of the Health and Human Services bureaucracy, and while it may have the force of law, it does not carry the authority of law.
But then, even the act itself does not seem to carry the force of law, as the Executive Branch has seen fit to re-write the provisions, reinterpret the words, and apply some parts of the law and ignore others, without regard to the legal basis for such actions.
Either the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010” is applied as it is written, or it is not. If not, it becomes a “dead letter” and essentially unenforceable, as there is no severability written into its provisions.
Does nobody remember the lessons of the 18th Amendment, which outlawed alcohol consumption? Now, if the vehicle for alcohol were to be something innocuous, like “cough medicine”, it could still be sold, but had to be labeled as such.
People coughed a lot in the period known as “Prohibition”.
I need a new car.. Since the dealer sells bailout italian cars I hope he has something on the used lot for me with a Ford badge on it.
They will be my first stop.
Let’s hope they win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.