Charleston Car Dealer Amends Court Constitutional Challenge to Abortifacient Requirements of Health Care Act

Updated 5 years ago by Tony E. Rutherford, News Editor
Charleston Car Dealer Amends Court Constitutional Challenge to Abortifacient Requirements of Health Care Act

Joe B. Holland Jr. and Joe Holland Chevrolet Inc. have filed an amended challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act, specifically the Abortifacient Requirement.  The plaintiff believes this portion “imposes an unjustifiable, substantial burden upon their exercise of religion in direct violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

At issue in the complaint, the definition of when life begins. Although the drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as approved birth control which “may cause the death of a human embryo after implantation in the uterus”, the plaintiffs believe that life begins prior to uterus implantation.

“The Plaintiffs do not oppose all forms of contraception, such as contraceptive drugs and devices that prevent fertilization. The Plaintiffs oppose only drugs that kill human embryos”, the complaint stated.

An earlier version of the complaint requesting a temporary restraining order has been withdrawn. They now seek declaratory and injunctive relief preventing enforcement of Abortifacient Requirement in the Affordable Care Act, which violates the first Amendment rights to freedom of religion, free speech and freedom of association.

The withdrawal occurred after Holland’s group health care provider stated that prior to July 1, 2013, the objectionable drugs were part of the plan.

A footnote explained that various brand name, generic, and over the counter drugs may fit the classification. Since the plaintiffs do not oppose “contraceptive drugs and methods that do not kill human embryos before or after implantation”, the complaint specifically opposes brand name Plan B drugs, generic Next Choice One Step and ella drugs. (pg. 9, footnote 2)

Similar complaints have been heard and decided throughout the United States. Court have made contradictory decisions, thus, setting a collision course to the United States Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction to resolve “conflicts (of law) among the circuits.”

  1. Complaint (1.53 MB)
Comments powered by Disqus