News By Tag
News By Place
The Hidden War on Women: Brief in HHS Case Exposes Ignored Contraceptive Health Risks
By including contraceptive and abortifacient drugs as "preventive" healthcare under the HHS Mandate, the Government ignored research showing that these drugs significantly increase risks of cancers, stroke, and a host of other serious diseases.
The ruling means that while the appeal is pending, O'Brien can't be coerced by the Government to provide no-cost coverage of contraceptive and abortifacient drugs in violation the business owners’ religious beliefs.
Representing "Women Speak for Themselves,"
The amicus brief informs the Court that contrary to the Government's claim that the mandated drugs promote women's "preventive"
"Yet the Government, and the Institute of Medicine report on which it relied, completely failed to address this evidence -- not even mentioning that the World Health Organization classifies combined oral contraceptives as 'Group 1: Carcinogenic to Humans,' "states the brief.
BDF senior counsel Dorinda C. Bordlee, lead counsel on the amicus brief, explained "the HHS Mandate fails the most basic test of preventive medicine, namely that hormonal contraceptives and abortifacients significantly increase risk of disease instead of decreasing it."
According to Bordlee, "Mandating free access to drugs that are classified as 'carcinogens' by the World Health Organization is the ultimate war on women," said Bordlee, "and forcing employers to provide free access to abortifacient drugs is the ultimate war on conscience."
BDF president Nikolas Nikas said the amicus brief presents the argument that the Mandate should be considered invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act, especialy in light of case law explaining that an agency rule is "arbitrary and capricious" if it "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem."
In addition, said Nikas, the brief explains that "The disregard of this highly relevant medical evidence also shows that the Government cannot meet its burden under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of demonstrating that application of the HHS Mandate to a religiously objecting employer 'is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest' – particularly its asserted interests of promoting women’s health."
“WSFT has no interest in changing the law regarding the legal availability of contraception. Rather, we want to show how HHS has failed to make a medical case for its current mandate,” said WSFT co-founder Helen Alvaré.
“We started Women Speak for Themselves (WSFT) with two messages,” said WSFT co-founder Kim Daniels. “First, women, just like men, care about religious freedom. Second, the 'preventive services' mandate does not advance women’s freedom or equality. This brief showcases some of the most prominent empirical data supporting our second message.”
● Read the amicus brief (http://bdfund.org/
Bioethics Defense Fund (www.BDFund.org)
Contact: Dorinda C. Bordlee, email@example.com, 504-231-7234