- Climate change could bring back smallpox, researchers say
- Shoe-bomb witness to speak from London at N.Y. trial
- New evidence could threaten Army sex assault case
- George Zimmerman signs autographs at Orlando gun show
- GOP lawmaker faces fire for NBA crime tweet
- Taliban vow to ‘use all force’ to disrupt Afghan elections
- Atheists sue to remove ‘Ground Zero Cross’ from 9/11 museum
- Bishop in Aleppo: ‘We Christians live in fear in Syria’
- Oscar Pistorius vomits during graphic testimony
- Toronto Mayor Rob Ford flubs daylight saving time advice: ‘Turn your clocks back’
Some fight, some fold in Obamacare contraception conflict
Certain businesses refuse to comply
Some of the business owners who sued the Obama administration over the “contraception mandate” tied to the health care law are insuring employees’ birth control against their will — now that the rule is in effect — or refusing to comply in an act of civil disobedience.
While many companies have obtained court orders excusing them from the obligation while they challenge the law, at least seven for-profit businesses were unable to get a temporary reprieve, leaving them to decide whether to obey the mandate or ignore it and risk substantial fines.
One plaintiff, Mersino Management, a water management company based in Metamora, Mich., has spurned the mandate even though it should have taken effect at the self-insured company June 1.
“They can’t violate their conscience, so they’re not,” said Erin Mersino, trial counsel at the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., adding that the groundwater control company — owned by her husband’s parents — has not been notified of potential sanctions.
Other companies that objected to the Obama policy have decided to play it safe and offer coverage for now even as they pursue their court cases.
Conestoga Wood Specialties in Pennsylvania is complying with the mandate, as is MK Chambers, a Michigan-based machinery company whose owners are devout Catholics. The company has been subject to the mandate since the beginning of the year.
After the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, the Obama administration issued a rule requiring businesses with 50 or more workers to provide health plans that include coverage for FDA-approved contraceptives.
The mandate prompted a flurry of lawsuits and has split federal appellate courts, setting up a potential showdown in the Supreme Court on whether the requirement violates an employer’s right to express religious freedom. Supporters of the mandate say it is not overly burdensome and that employers cannot impose their personal beliefs on a diverse workforce that may not share their moral values.
The rule applies to for-profit company health plans issued during or after August 2012. That means virtually all corporate employers who objected to the requirement are now subject to it after renewing their annual policies at some point in the past year.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which administers most of the law, referred questions to the Labor Department, saying it’s that department’s job to police employers. A Labor spokeswoman said the department did not have a statement on the issue.
So far, 24 for-profit plaintiffs have obtained relief from the mandate in court, while five additional plaintiffs have filed suit and are awaiting action, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is keeping track of the lawsuits.
Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate, and the administration has come up with a special formula for religiously affiliated organizations such as charities or colleges to have employees covered without forcing the organizations themselves to pay for it. But for-profit corporations have not been granted any leeway from the Obama administration.
Four of the seven for-profit companies under pressure to comply with the mandate are clustered in Michigan, and attorneys there say judges within the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals do not seem eager to grant relief.
Mrs. Mersino said one company, Eden Foods of southeast Michigan, refused to sign an insurance agreement that would have covered contraceptives, but the issuer decided to include birth control without the company’s consent, placing the owners in unwitting compliance with the mandate.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Tom Howell Jr. covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Rate of uninsured Americans is dropping: Gallup
- Russia should be booted from FIFA World Cup, senators say
- New tool helps figure Obamacare penalties
- Tax-prep firms pitch in, cash in on Obamacare
- Obama tries to reassure Hispanics on Obamacare
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Senate Democrats, Republicans spar over restoring unemployment benefits
- CURL: Today's GOP really is Reagan's 'Big Tent' party
- Mitch McConnell on beating tea party: 'We are going to crush them'
- Rand Paul wins 2014 CPAC straw poll, Ted Cruz finishes a distant second
- Arrest made in Ohio bar shooting that killed 3
- SAUERBREY: Taxing Marylanders until they flee
- As Crimea falls, Obama takes Key Largo golf vacation, Biden hits Virgin Islands
- Charges filed against accused 'shadow campaign' financier
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again