« Court Rules Medi-Share Must End Cost-Sharing Ministry In Kentucky | Main | Sunday School Grenade Attack In Kenya Kills Child, Injures Three Others »
October 3, 2012
Bible Publisher Tyndale Files Lawsuit Against HHS Contraceptive Mandate
(Updated) Lawyers: "The government ... knows how ridiculous it sounds arguing that a Bible publisher isn’t religious enough to qualify as a religious employer."
Update (May 9, 2013): Seven months after it filed suit, Tyndale House Publishers has secured its injunction against the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraceptive mandate.
Baptist Press reports that the victory is due to the Obama Administration's "own partial retreat in the case." The government had appealed an injunction granted to Tyndale by a lower court judge in November but recently asked that the appeal be dismissed. The judge dismissed the appeal, which means that Tyndale will not be forced to comply with the contraceptive mandate while its case moves forward.
But the government's motivation is difficult to discern, Religion Clause suggests.
----
The number of lawsuits facing the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Affordable Care Act (ACA) keeps growing.
Tyndale House Publishers, a Bible publishing house, filed suit against the government yesterday, arguing that the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate violates the owners' right to free exercise of religion.
"The federal government has deemed devout publishers of the Bible to be insufficiently 'religious' to enjoy religious freedom in America," the complaint stated.
According to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund), which is representing Tyndale, "The publisher is subject to the mandate because Obama administration rules say for-profit corporations are categorically non-religious."
However, the for-profit publisher is owned by the Christian nonprofit Tyndale House Foundation, which funds Christian charities and receives 96 percent of Tyndale House Publishers' profits.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the United States directed the government to respond to a petition for rehearing in Liberty University v. Geithner, a case involving ACA challenges. A judge had previously ruled in 2011 that the "federal tax Anti-Injunction Act bars the court from considering the challenge to the law." Plaintiffs are seeking a rehearing of the case following rulings that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply in this situation.
Tyndale is the second evangelical-owned business to file suit against HHS; CT previously covered a similar lawsuit by retail-craft chain Hobby Lobby.
Comments
Tyndale, since when do you oppose contraception as a matter of conscience? Maybe your motivation is more political than spiritual. I suggest you save your outrage for an issue that matters.
Posted By: Bruce M. | October 3, 2012 3:08 PM
How odd that a Bible publisher might wish to act consistently with its espoused beliefs and to actually follow the scriptures that it publishes - imagine that. Contraception accomplished through abortive drugs is abortion, and as such is a poor excuse for contraception. It is this portion of the HHS, ACA mandate that Christian companies object to, and I believe rightly so. This issue really does matter because it sets precident as to how or how not Christians can put their faith into practice, as faith without works is dead. The founder of Tyndale, who is now deceased, Ken Taylor founded Tyndale as a means to to align everything that he did with with a Kingdom view in mind and Tyndale continues to keep that mission. Perhaps, pursuing government sponsored contraception is political rather than spiritual?
Posted By: Brian V. | October 4, 2012 9:01 AM
Okay, Jesus wasn't "religious" in the sense that he spoke out against the hypocritical religious leaders of his day. Christians prefer to say we have a "relationship" with Christ rather than we are "religious" because the latter connotes our salvation is based on what we do rather than by God's grace of sending Christ to pay the penalty of our sins. A "religious" person could be someone who tries to "look" holy but hasn't internally accepted the teachings of the Gospel (Good News of Christ's death allowing us to have the free gift of salvation).
However, for the sake of the government's definition, Tyndale House is definitely considered a "religious" company. I used to work there and I can verify that Ken Taylor, the founder, gave away millions of dollars in profits from the Living Bible to start a foundation called Living Bibles International. He lived frugally and hired excellent managers to run the company cost-efficiently.
When customers ever complained to a Christian bookstore that any of our books had even a hint of Biblical innaccuracy or innapropriateness, the books were recalled. For example, there was a Civil War historical novel written by Gilbert Morris. He had written a fictional account of a woman who was attacked by a soldier and he grabbed her dress and ripped it so her breasts were exposed. It was historically accurate, but, for some (one?) readers it was too explicit. Ken Taylor recalled the first print run of 10,000 copies and had the editor re-write the passage to say the soldier ripped her sleeve off, exposing her arm. Okay, some of us in-the-know thought that was going too far to placate the more conservative customers. But, Ken Taylor didn't want anything to offend a reader or stand in the way of someone receiving the Gospel message. Every single Bible, book, video, CD, card, tract, poster, etc. that came out of Tyndale while I worker there had to fit into the Christian mission statement of the company. It is my understanding that Mark Taylor, Ken's son, is running the company with the same mission statement.
Posted By: Pam W. | October 4, 2012 10:09 AM
Tyndale does not have a problem covering contraceptives in our health plan, but we are not going to cover abortifacients. This is against our biblical values as a company, and a violation of religious freedom. The First Amendment of the US Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and this is why Tyndale filed suit – because the HHS mandate crosses that line.
Posted By: Maggie Rowe | October 4, 2012 4:28 PM
A little confusing, "for profit" Christian organizations demanding freedom from government mandates so they can continue imposing their own on their employees(?) I believe the Healthcare mandate gives employees working in these types of businesses a choice. The government is not imposing that these employees must use the contraception, but offers them the liberty to chose. It is the Empolyer who takes a tyrannical position of decreeing their mandate in the work place by establishing their personal beliefs on their employees. There is much public confusion on this matter the way the anti-Affordable Health Care Act proponents are acting with all the fearmongering they do... This is part of it. Organizations such as Tyndale that are established to expand in the secular market place for profit rightfully now must answer to other parts of the law.... Such as paying taxes on assessts and other aquisitions. Examples of Christian owned businesses that hire people from other faiths such as hospitals wanting to bypass this Healthcare mandate should then only hire Christian employees and care for only Christian patients the same way a church is able to sustain their non-profit status... If Tyndale House really was fighting principle here they could easily fold their business back into the non-profit of their foundation and streamline their market goods to be sold only to Christians and maintain a Christian only workforce. Having the liberty of choice is in the best interest of all Americans. God himself gives us this freedom. Certain Christians trying to impose aspects of their faith "as law" could have implications as witnessed by seeing how the islamic Taliban having taken away rights and liberties becoming oppressive believing they do a just service to please God.
Posted By: Chris B. | October 8, 2012 12:09 PM
Post a comment: