The Little Sisters of the Poor have asked the Supreme Court of the United States for relief from the Tenth Circuit’s ruling earlier this month rejecting their challenge to the “accommodation” from HHS’ contraceptive mandate.

Paul Clement is counsel of record on their petition for writ of certiorari. (Hat tip to How Appealing).

Also, yesterday in the Albuquerque Journal carried this op-ed by Erin Armstrong, a lawyer for the ACLU of New Mexico, defending the Tenth Circuit’s ruling.

Unfortunately, Ms. Armstrong is mistaken about some of the issues presented by the case. For example, she says “[a]ll the law asks is that those organizations fill out a simple form stating their objection.” As I explained here, and as Mr. Clement explains much more eloquently in the petition, this is not “all the law asks.” Instead, the Little Sisters’ claim is  that even filling out the form involves them in cooperation with acts they believe to be immoral.

Ms. Armstrong also asserts that “[w]e all have the right to our religious beliefs, but that freedom does not entitle us to discriminate or decide what kind of health care others will or will not receive.” This statement is of no relevance to the case. The Little Sisters are not acting out of some kind of discriminatory animus against others, but instead seek to avoid participating in acts they consider to be immoral.

Also, they’re not attempting to “decide what kind of health care others” will get. Even if the Little Sisters prevail, their employees remain free to buy contraceptives, which are widely available in our society. And of course, if an employee wants to work for an employer that maintains an insurance plan that covers contraceptives, there are plenty of workplaces that do so. No one’s forcing anyone to work for the Little Sisters.