March for Life Education and Defense Fund v. California
Description: On the same day that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued its final interim rule protecting nonprofit religious and pro-life organizations from the Obama-era abortion-pill mandate, the state of California filed suit to challenge the rule. The mandate forces employers, regardless of their moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs under threat of heavy financial penalties.
Federal court to reconsider decision against HHS conscience protections
Tuesday, Dec 15, 2020
WHAT: Hearing on supplemental briefing in March for Life Education and Defense Fund v. California
WHEN: Wednesday, Dec. 16, immediately following hearing, which begins at 2 p.m. PST
WHERE: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. Hearing will be telephonic; to schedule an interview, contact ADF Media Relations Specialist Bernadette Tasy at (480) 356-0324 or submit a request online
OAKLAND, Calif. – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys will be available for media interviews Wednesday following the first federal court hearing to be held since the U.S. Supreme Court vacated district and appellate court decisions in March for Life Education and Defense Fund v. California.
In July, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a federal district court’s preliminary injunction order and a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decision upholding that order against U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rules that protect organizations with religious or moral objections to including abortifacients in their health care plans. The Supreme Court did so in light of its ruling upholding the same HHS protections in The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Trump v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
“The government shouldn’t be forcing anyone—least of all pro-life organizations—to violate their conscience by providing drugs and devices that can destroy life,” said ADF Senior Counsel Ken Connelly, who will argue before the district court on behalf of March for Life. “Now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the HHS protections for Little Sisters of the Poor and others, the district court in California should similarly ensure that pro-life groups like March for Life can pursue their missions without being compelled to violate their own beliefs.”
The HHS rules free organizations with such objections from a federal requirement that employer health plans cover abortifacients. The Obama administration implemented the requirement, which forces many employers to provide employees with abortion-inducing drugs and other contraceptives through their health plans under threat of heavy financial penalties, regardless of the employers’ religious or moral convictions. ADF attorneys represent March for Life, sponsor of the large annual pro-life march in Washington, D.C.
Brian R. Chavez-Ochoa, one of more than 3,700 attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as co-counsel on behalf of March for Life.
Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
OAKLAND, Calif. – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys will be available for media interviews Wednesday following the first federal court hearing to be held since the U.S. Supreme Court vacated district and appellate court decisions in March for Life Education and Defense Fund v. California.
In July, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a federal district court’s preliminary injunction order and a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decision upholding that order against U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rules that protect organizations with religious or moral objections to including abortifacients in their health care plans. The Supreme Court did so in light of its ruling upholding the same HHS protections in The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Trump v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
“The government shouldn’t be forcing anyone—least of all pro-life organizations—to violate their conscience by providing drugs and devices that can destroy life,” said ADF Senior Counsel Ken Connelly, who will argue before the district court on behalf of March for Life. “Now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the HHS protections for Little Sisters of the Poor and others, the district court in California should similarly ensure that pro-life groups like March for Life can pursue their missions without being compelled to violate their own beliefs.”
The HHS rules free organizations with such objections from a federal requirement that employer health plans cover abortifacients. The Obama administration implemented the requirement, which forces many employers to provide employees with abortion-inducing drugs and other contraceptives through their health plans under threat of heavy financial penalties, regardless of the employers’ religious or moral convictions. ADF attorneys represent March for Life, sponsor of the large annual pro-life march in Washington, D.C.
Brian R. Chavez-Ochoa, one of more than 3,700 attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as co-counsel on behalf of March for Life.
Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
# # # | Ref. 62592
Photos
Commentary
Previous News Releases
US Supreme Court wipes out 9th Circuit decision against HHS conscience protections
Thursday, Jul 9, 2020
March for Life to Supreme Court: Uphold HHS rules that allow us to follow our pro-life mission
Wednesday, Feb 19, 2020
Legal Documents
Reply brief for petitioner: March for Life Education and Defense Fund v. California
Petition for writ of certiorari: March for Life Education and Defense Fund v. California
9th Circuit opinion and dissent: State of California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Reply brief for intervenor-defendant-appellant March for Life filed with the 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
Opening brief for intervenor-defendant-appellant March for Life filed with the 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
Notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
Preliminary injunction order: State of California v. Azar
Supplemental brief for appellant March for Life filed with 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
9th Circuit opinion and dissent: State of California v. Azar
Reply brief for the federal appellants filed with 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
Reply brief for intervenor-appellant Little Sisters of the Poor filed with 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
Reply brief for intervenor-appellant March for Life filed with 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
Appellees brief filed with 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
Opening brief for the federal appellants filed with 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
Opening brief for intervenor-appellant Little Sisters of the Poor filed with 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
Opening brief for intervenor-appellant March for Life filed with the 9th Circuit: State of California v. Azar
District court order granting March for Life's motion to intervene: State of California v. Azar
District court order granting states' motion for preliminary injunction: State of California v. Azar
March for Life's motion to intervene and brief in support: State of California v. Hargan
Complaint: State of California v. Hargan