Judge sides with company on contraceptive coverage

Associated Press Modified: November 16, 2012 at 9:16 pm •  Published: November 16, 2012
Advertisement
;

Walton acknowledged that the government has broad, compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring that women have equal access to health care, but he said the question "is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests," underlying "to the plaintiffs" in the text. Nothing in Walton's order applied to anyone other than Tyndale.

Walton said that the government hasn't offered any proof that mandatory insurance for the specific types of contraceptives that Tyndale objects to furthers the government's compelling interests.

Walton ordered the parties to appear on a date yet to be determined for arguments on whether to make the injunction permanent.

Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers "should be free to do business according to the book that they publish."

He added: "The Obama administration is not entitled to disregard religious freedom."

The Health and Human Service Department declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

___

Follow Fred Frommer on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ffrommer



Trending Now


AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    Report: Caron Butler close to two-year deal with Detroit Pistons
  2. 2
    It’s harder to be a poor student in the U.S. than in Russia
  3. 3
    Man fatally stabbed in west Tulsa early Sunday
  4. 4
    How brain imaging can be used to predict the stock market
  5. 5
    Bridenstine tours Fort Sill, satisfied with facility's transparency
+ show more