Not only is the Archdiocese of Washington DC suing the federal government over its oppressive birth control mandate, but it is also accusing the Obama administration of engaging in a “conscious political strategy to marginalize and delegitimize” Catholic “religious views on contraception by holding them up for ridicule on the national stage.”

CNSNews.com is reporting that the new lawsuit challenges the controversial mandate requiring all employers - with the exception of a few narrowly defined "religious institutions" - to provide insurance that covers contraception, abortifacients, and sterilizations to their employees. Named parties in the suit include a number of Catholic schools and charities which fall outside of the government's definition of "religious institution."

However, this suit goes one step further and points to actions and statements made by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius which demonstrate that the administration is deliberately targeting the Catholic Church for its views.

“When the government promulgated the mandate, it was acutely aware that the gap in coverage for contraception was due primarily to the religious beliefs and practices of employers such as the Catholic Church,” says the archdiocese’s memorandum, which was filed with U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Sept. 24.

“Indeed, the Government itself concedes that 85 percent of health plans already cover contraception, and asserts that adding contraception to the remaining 15 percent is cost-neutral,” says the memorandum.

“If so, then the only conceivable reason why the latter plans would not include contraceptive coverage is a religious or moral objection. But instead of pursuing one of a wide variety of options for increasing access to contraception without forcing these religious groups to participate in the effort, the government deliberately chose to pick a high-profile fight by forcing religious groups to provide or facilitate access to contraception in violation of their core beliefs.

“The record, moreover, establishes that the mandate was part of a conscious political strategy to marginalize and delegitimize plaintiffs’ religious views on contraception by holding them up for ridicule on the national stage.”

As an example, the archdiocese pointed to comments made at a NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraiser, by Sebelius who said: "Wouldn’t you think that people who want to reduce the number of abortions would champion the cause of widely affordable contraceptive services? Not so much.”

“Likewise,” the memorandum continues, “the original definition of ‘preventive service’ was promulgated by an Institute of Medicine Committee that was stacked with individuals who, like Defendant Sebelius, strongly disagreed with many Catholic teachings, causing the committee’s lone dissenter to lament that the committee’s recommendation reflected the other members’ ‘subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.’”

The government's anti-religious bias is further confirmed by the fact that the mandate was closely modeled on a California statute whose chief legislative sponsor made it quite clear that it was intended to strike a blow against Catholic religious authorities.

“Thus,” says the memorandum, “not only the ‘real operation’ but also the intended effect of the mandate is to target and suppress plaintiffs’ religious practices.”

In addition to Sebelius, named defendants in the case include Thomas Perez, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, and Jack Lew, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com