Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Two major stories about what power the government has to control what happens inside a person’s body are making headlines this week. The Courts are Unlikely to Require Religious Accommodation When it Comes to Avoiding the COVID-19 Vaccine The Delta variant of COVID-19 has been wreaking havoc around the world – and part of the reason is that this is […]
Supreme Court sidesteps the free exercise claim and grants government agencies the power to determine whether to apply the ACA contraceptive mandates to employers.
This morning the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The issue in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, was whether this limit actually protected the health of pregnant women and wasn’t in place just to make it more difficult to have an abortion. This was very similar to the issue the Court last visited in 2016 (Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt) when it overturned a Texas abortion doctor admitting privileges requirement.
In a 147-page ruling issued today, New York Federal Judge Paul Engelmayer found that the Trump administration's "conscience act" exceeded the president's authority but did not violate the Establishment Clause. Given its procedural defects, the rule was invalidated in its entirety.
SILVER SPRING, MD – The Executive Committee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church voted at its Annual Council meeting [see Video] to adopt the position that "[t]he Seventh-day Adventist Church considers abortion out of harmony with God's plan for human life." The newly adopted position statement affirms that "God considers the unborn child as human life" and that "the principle to preserve life enshrined in the sixth commandment places abortion within its scope."
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument in a case involving a Louisiana regulation on abortion doctors. It is similar to a Texas case decided in 2016.
When it comes to abortion, Seventh-day Adventists range from providers to prominent pro-life advocates. Now the church may be revisiting its position on the controversial issue.
In its third case on the issue of state-required speech this term, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a California case involving whether the state can compel pro-life pregnancy counseling centers to post notices about the existence of publicly-funded abortion and contraceptive services, and requires disclosures if the centers or personnel are unlicensed.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear a cases brought by three California faith-based pregnancy counseling organizations that are challenging a California law that require every licensed pregnancy center in the state to inform its clients of publicly funded abortion and contraception services. The organizations claim that the law violates their freedom of speech by requiring them […]
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a Washington state requirement that all pharmacies must fill contraceptives regardless of the religious objections of the owners.