The lawsuit argues that the contraception provision "illegally and unconstitutionally coerces Geneva College to violate the Sixth Commandment under threat of heavy fines and penalties," a reference to the biblical directive against murder.
It asks for a judge's ruling that the regulations violate federal law and the First Amendment rights of the college and similar faith-based or church-related groups. It also seeks an order exempting the school from complying with the birth-control rule in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
A national controversy that erupted this year when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups protested the rule that required church-affiliated universities, hospitals, and nonprofits to include birth control without co-pays or premiums in their insurance plans.
Their opposition led President Obama to modify the rule with changes that shift the burden from religious organizations to insurance companies, which did little to satisfy the opposition.
The alliance has filed a similar lawsuit in Louisiana on behalf of Louisiana College in Pineville, and Republican lawmakers in a handful of states have filed legislation that would allow insurance companies to ignore the mandate.
Other religious and conservative groups also have criticized the Obama administration. They object in particular to contraception that prevents fertilization or aborts embryos after fertilization. These include "Ella" and "Plan B," also known as morning-after pills.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner are named as defendants in both lawsuits. A spokeswoman for Health and Human Services said Tuesday the department doesn't comment on litigation and referred an Associated Press reporter to a 23-page agency document that states reasons for the regulations.
The document states: "The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a law that is not specifically targeted at religiously motivated conduct and that applies equally to conduct without regard to whether it is religiously motivated - a so-called neutral law of general applicability."
