Pro-life Employers Appeal to U.S. 2nd Circuit After NY Judge Sides with State

Real Abortion News reported that on March 29 Judge McAvoy of the Northern U.S. District Court sided with a New York State labor law, making it illegal for pro-life employers to hire according to their pro-life beliefs and mission in CompassCare v Cuomo.

The ruling means that if pro-life organizations, including churches, do not comply with the pro-abortion labor law, they could face fines, AG prosecution, and private lawsuits by prospective employees not hired because of their pro-abortion beliefs or actions. CompassCare and the other named plaintiffs in the lawsuit have filed a notice of appeal to the Federal 2nd Circuit.

Shouldn’t Christian organizations and churches be free to hire according to their religious convictions without fearing threats and retribution from secular government?

To serve women and save lives go to


2 comments on “Pro-life Employers Appeal to U.S. 2nd Circuit After NY Judge Sides with State”

  1. David Sigmon Reply

    The state (government, state or federal), should not be advocating on behalf of one industry or company against another industry or company. By requiring specific
    insurance coverage the state (government), violates the employer’s theological (Constitutional), right to not support those procedures which he (the company), find theologically offensive. The employer must now in good conscience screen his personel to employ only those who will not avail themselves to the offensive required insurance provisions. If the state then abolishes the employer’s right to hire whom he (the company), chooses for whatever reason he (the company), chooses them the employer is being denied his (the individual owner, the shareholders), right to theological (religious), freedom and is being forced to support (practice,worship), the states (government body’s), mandate (doctrine, theology, belief), in conflict with his own (the owner’s (individual, couple, shareholders),), beliefs (personal or corperation ideology).

    The solution is for the state (government, state or federal), to not interfere with either parties rights and allow the employee to seek employment with the employer that provides the best overall compensation. The employee may prefer an employer who pays more but provides no or limited insurance thereby affording the employee the right to pick his (his or hers), own insurance as best suites him (him or her).

    In such a system (as we used to have), the employer that does not provide what the employee market requires finds it hard to keep his staff and that is called a free market economy because you are able (free), to choose your own path in life and work for whom you choose.

    • David Sigmon Reply

      If my comment is awaiting moderation the you should state it more accurately, my comment is awaiting censorship and rewriting. To say otherwise is to mislead fore to moderate ones comment in whole or in part is to censor. Intended or not, well meaning or not, modifying ones comment, except when done by the one, is to change and alter the comment from it’s original form and content.

      That is not the right thing to do…it is the left.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.