<p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><img src="images/stories/focus.jpg" border="0" alt="Focus on the Family" width="421" height="42" /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Dear Friend,<br /><br />As you may recall, earlier this year the federal government issued a new rule as part of the recently upheld healthcare law, requiring almost all religious employers to provide insurance that pays for contraceptives and possible abortion-causing drugs. Employers can't opt out of paying for the coverage, and employees can't refuse it. The only exceptions to the rule are churches.<br /><br />Scores of other religious employers—including Catholic hospitals and Christian universities—objected to the rule, pointing out how it forces them to violate their conscience and their faith. As a result, in January the government announced it was revising the rule to create a so-called "safe harbor" for them: instead of being forced to comply in August, as all secular business owners were, they would have an extra year to find a way to make their faith coordinate with the mandate.<br /><br />Wheaton College, a Christian university in Illinois, didn't qualify for the "safe harbor" extension. So administrators sued the federal government, saying the mandate violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.<br /><br />And the federal government responded, not by backing away from the mandate, but by revising the rule yet again: Under a revision that took effect on Aug. 15, Wheaton College now qualifies for the deadline extension.<br /><br />As a result, the federal court that was hearing the case dismissed it last Friday, saying that because no one at Wheaton has yet been forced to violate their faith, no harm has been done.<br /><br />This is a brilliant piece of gamesmanship by the government. By revising the rule, the lawsuit disappears for another year—without a decision determining whether religious freedom trumps the edicts of federal health officials, and without dominating the headlines to remain in people's minds.<br /><br />The only problem is that the issue at the heart of the case can't be dismissed quite so easily. Either the First Amendment actually means something—including the public expression of one's personal faith—or it doesn't. And by punting the decision, the court has allowed a wrong to continue<a href="https://connect.focusonthefamily.com/aprimo/etrack.aspx?DSN=b9ca57b2fbe8cb42458807853387983f6a0f6be5ccdab113&amp;FORMID=73f001951d4db42565455b0f3282e685&amp;AUDID=762e0b4d1027e9c635494eb13059823c&amp;EMAILID=c0c6dcd8184f00d6c979114b87cd2710635947470a9cb178&amp;DECODE=1&amp;R=1ff778b315c61d38e0cdd0fb646ca951&amp;URL=http://www.focusonthefamily.com/donate.aspx?refcd=127106"></a>.<br /><br />This then, is the heart of the struggle for religious liberty that is fast building to a crisis in our country. May God grant perseverance and courage to those religious employers who are taking their stand against the heavy hand of government.<br /><br />For faith and family,<br /><img src="http://link.focusonthefamily.com/email/CRM/05/signature_tomminnery2.gif" border="0" alt="Signed: Tom Minnery" width="148" height="50" /><br />Tom MinnerySenior Vice President, Government &amp; Public Policy</p>