March for Life wins birth control challenge

March for Life, which holds an annual rally and march down Pennsylvania Avenue every January, says its religious freedom is being violated by having to provide its employees with coverage of birth control, which it opposes on moral grounds. The requirement stems from Obamacare, but the Department of Health and Human Services made the decision to include birth control in a list of required coverage by employers.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that HHS is showing “regulatory favoritism” by offering an exemption from the mandate to some churches but not to organizations that aren’t explicitly religious but still have moral objections to birth control.

“March for Life” is an avowedly pro-life organization whose employees share in, and advocate for, a particular moral philosophy,” Leon wrote. “HHS has chosen, however, to accommodate this moral philosophy only when it is overtly tied to religious values.”

Besides the exemption for churches, the administration has offered an accommodation to religious hospitals, schools and charities. But some groups are challenging the accommodation, saying it doesn’t go far enough, and the Supreme Court may say in the fall whether it will take up one of those cases.

March for Life, on the other hand, is arguing the birth control requirement itself is unconstitutional and wants the administration to do away with it entirely.

“Pro-life organizations should not be forced into betraying the very values they were established to advance,” said Matt Bowman, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, a group representing March for Life. “This is especially true of March for Life, which was founded to uphold life, not to assist in taking it. The government has no right to demand that organizations provide health insurance plan options that explicitly contradict their mission.”

The Obama administration is likely to appeal the decision.