By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
A lower court had ruled that requiring PrEP coverage was akin to supporting homosexuality and, therefore, a violation of religious rights. However, advocates are concerned about further legal challenges that may appear.
“I don’t even understand why they brought this case,” Fifth Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes said of the suit being handled by anti-LGBTQ+ lawyer Jonathan Mitchell.
Dianne Hensley says performing such marriages is incompatible with her religious faith, and her lawsuit is heading to the Texas Supreme Court.
She claims that the decision that allowed a Colorado web designer not to be forced to create a site contrary to her beliefs extends to her view that only heterosexual couples should be married.
The court issued a stay that will last for the duration of the government’s appeal in the case.
Attorneys representing the Department of Health and Human Services filed a notice of appeal within one day of the conservative judge’s ruling.
The judge says that although PrEP prevents HIV regardless of one’s sexual orientation, because gay people use it, it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
