Judge Blocks Obamacare Contraception Mandate Because He's Not Sure If It's Good for Ladies

A federal judge decided that a Christian publishing company can temporarily shirk Obamacare by refusing to cover "contraceptives that it equates with abortion" because he's not sure whether the government's mandated coverage is actually the best thing for ladies.

Hmm. We thought affordable access to a full range of reproductive options was good for us, other women who can't otherwise afford their preferred method of contraception, and the economy, but maybe we're wrong! It's so complicated! Should we flip a coin?

The contraceptives in question include Plan B — which only prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg and has no effect on women who are already pregnant — and IUDs, which eat full-grown children for breakfast block sperm and, according to surveys, are what most women would choose if they could afford it. To Tyndale House Publishers, the company that sought the preliminary injunction, these methods are exactly the same as abortion. Because they said so.

According to the Washington Post, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton "acknowledged" (how nice of him!) that the government "has broad, compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring that women have equal access to health care" — oh really, the goal isn't to kill as many unborn children as possible because of communism? — but that the question "is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests."

Basically: does allowing women equal access to health care further the "compelling interest" that is "allowing women equal access to health care"? Hmm, dunno!

The judge says "the government hasn't offered any proof that mandatory insurance for the specific types of contraceptives that Tyndale objects to furthers the government's compelling interests." Which makes as much sense as thinking that Plan B and IUDs = abortion, especially because access to those forms of contraception actually leads to lower rates of abortions and teen births. Sorry, Tyndale House ladies! Judge Walton gets to decide what's good for you, not you.

Earlier this month, we reported on another federal judge who issued a temporary injunction against Obamacare so that the religious boss of a secular for-profit outdoor power equipment supplier wouldn't have to cover his employer's contraceptive needs. The judge was not the first to issue such an order, and we had a feeling he wouldn't be the last.

Judge grants company injunction against health-care law contraception efforts [Washington Post]