SCOTUS up angle1Written by Don Byrd

Last week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against plaintiffs, religious nonprofits, who claim the White House’s contraception coverage rules designed to accommodate them are insufficient to protect their religious liberty rights. The Court said the burden on religious organizations to submit a form signalling their objection to providing such coverage was not substantial, and rejected the argument that the process leaves the plaintiffs involved in the act of making accessible  contraceptives they find objectionable to their employees.

In an editorial for Aleteia, Father Frank Pavone announced that Priests for Life will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, will refuse to obey the mandate, and considers the appeals court ruling equivalent to outlawing Catholicism.

There are such things as “insubstantial” burdens on the practice of the faith. For instance, we wouldn’t object if fire codes or zoning ordinances might make a church temporarily unavailable for worship. It may cause us an inconvenience, but it is not worship as such that is being outlawed in that case.

At issue in our lawsuit is an objective criterion: our inability to cooperate in evil is based on a verifiable, publicly stated belief of the entire Catholic Church, and that belief is not optional for one who wants to be a Catholic. When, therefore, the only options the government leaves a citizen are to violate his/her religion or violate the law, that is the same thing as making the practice of Catholicism illegal.

Both the 6th and 7th Circuits have also ruled in the government’s favor on this question. The 10th Circuit is scheduled to take up the matter in a hearing on December 8.