���ϳԹ���

Employers do not need to provide insurance coverage for contraception even if their objections are moral rather than religious, a federal judge here ruled on Monday. The case concerned a group called March for Life, which was formed after the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. The group, Monday’s decision said, “is a nonprofit, nonreligious pro-life organization.” (Liptak, 8/31)

The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon adds to the legal debate surrounding the law’s requirement that contraceptives for women be included among a range of cost-free, preventive benefits offered to employees. ... March for Life, which holds annual anti-abortion marches in Washington, was founded in 1973 following the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade opinion that established the legal right to abortion. The organization contends that life begins at conception and opposes coverage in its health insurance plans for methods of contraception that it likens to abortion. (Tucker, 8/31)

Now, a U.S. District Court has ruled that, like some like-minded religious groups, March for Life does not have to offer coverage for a service it doesn’t believe in. “March for Life has been excised from the fold because it is not ‘religious,'” Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in his opinion. “This is nothing short of regulatory favoritism.” (Moyer, 9/1)

A federal judge struck down part of the 2010 health care law’s contraception mandate on Monday, ruling that the government can’t deny an exemption to secular groups that oppose abortion. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, in a 29-page ruling in Washington D.C., ruled it unconstitutional for the Department of Health and Human Services to give religious groups that oppose abortion an exemption to the mandate, but not give one to March for Life, an advocacy group best known for an annual anti-abortion march that draws large crowds to the National Mall. (Ruger, 8/31)