U.S. District Court grants preliminary injunction to Tyndale House Publishers...

The Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) just issued a press release announcing the success of its petition for a preliminary injunction suspending the levying of fines against Tyndale House Publishers for refusing to provide its employees the chemical abortions required by Obamacare. Judge Reggie B. Walton of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the injunction, stating:

(T)he Court finds that the plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) claim, and that the remaining preliminary injunction factors weigh in favor of granting the plaintiffs an injunction on the basis of that claim.

What kind of bloodlust permeates the administration of President Barack Obama?

Judge Walton describes the Obama administration's response to Tyndale House Publishers' request for relief of conscience concerning Obamacare's requirement that they pay for the murder of their employees' unborn children as follows:

The defendants concede that the plaintiffs’ religious belief is sincere, but dispute that the contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdens this religious belief.

So our civil magistrate inside the Beltway denies that forcing a Christian employer to pay for the murder of his employees' children "substantially burdens (his) religious belief."

Brothers and sisters, keep your eye on the ball. Rebels against God's Moral Law always get their nose under the tent with appeals to freedom of choice, but once they are successful on that preliminary level, they turn on the righteous and use force to make them join in the wickedness. Abortion started out as a woman's right and now it's become a Christian's duty... And they have the chutzpah to tell us this duty is no substantial burden on our freedom of religion!

The defendants (Obama administration) point to the deprivation of preventive services to the 260 employees covered by the plaintiffs’ (Tyndale House Publishers') health plan, as well as those employees’ spouses and dependents, as harming the public interest. ...In so arguing, the defendants point to the purpose of the contraceptive coverage mandate, “which is to improve the health of women and children and promote gender equality by equalizing coverage of preventive services for women."

The administration of President Barack Obama declares that murdering unborn children will "improve the health of women and children and promote gender equality."

Responding to this claim, Judge Walton ruled:

However, as discussed above, the defendants have failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in applying the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs. They have thus also failed to show the harm to the public that they claim.

Praise God for one judge who won't violate his vow to uphold our United States Constitution for the sake of a bribe. And they tell us Obamacare is constitutional!

Liars they are.

* * *

By the way, note how the defendents and court habitually lie, referring to chemical abortifacients as "contraceptives." Footnote 14 on page 19 attempts to explain this discrepancy: "The plaintiffs use the term 'abortifacients' to refer to the three contraceptives at issue in this case—Plan B, ella, and intrauterine devices—which they state 'cause the demise of an already conceived/fertilized human embryo.' See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 59, 75, 81-83.