I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals's decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market.... [and] that the terms of health coverage offered by employers to their employees have substantial effects cumulatively on interstate commerce.The court went on to reject Establishment Clause challenges to the Act's religious conscience exemption and its health care sharing ministry exemption. Both were seen as permissible religious accommodations. It also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Act requires them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs against facilitating, subsidizing, easing, funding, or supporting abortions. The court said:
[Plaintiffs] fail to allege how any payments required under the Act ... would be used to fund abortion. Indeed, the Act contains strict safeguards at multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services beyond those in cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.Reuters reports on the decision. In a post by Stephanie Cutter, Assistant to the President, the White House reacted, saying: "In the weeks ahead, there will be additional court cases examining this matter and the health reform law. We can’t predict the outcome of each case, but we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in court and continue to deliver the benefits of reform to the American people."
Liberty Counsel, representing plaintiffs, issued a release saying that an appeal will be filed. Judge Moon's decision comes less than a week after the New York Times speculated in a lengthy article that another Virginia federal district court judge, Judge Henry E. Hudson, in a separate case-- a challenge filed by the state of Virginia-- is likely to find the statute unconstitutional.
