President Obama’s mandate that most private companies provide health insurance plans that cover the costs of contraceptives has met with considerable headwinds in the legal system, where nine of the 14 federal courts to rule so far have sided with employers who say the mandate violates their beliefs and infringes on their religious liberties.
Although the broad scope of the president’s health care law survived Supreme Court scrutiny last year, the challenges to the contraception mandate remain major legal hurdles for the Obama administration, and the deep skepticism shown by a number of judges makes it likely that the high court will be called upon to settle this dispute, too.
The birth control mandate has been a flash point since it was announced a year ago.
Under the new rules, all employers with the exception of houses of worship have to pay for — or make available through an outside insurer — contraceptive coverage for employees as part of their insurance plans, including such items as the “morning-after pill,” sterilizations and other treatments to which the Catholic Church, many evangelicals and other religions object.
Religiously affiliated charities and schools immediately objected to the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, as did some devout business owners, and more than 40 challenges are winding their way through the courts, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is helping with many of the lawsuits.
None of the courts has reached a decision on the merits of the cases, but the key question with which judges appear to be grappling is whether a corporation other than a church can be said to “exercise” religion and enjoy constitutional protections for freedom of worship.
A federal judge in Colorado posed the query last month in an order that granted a heating, ventilation and air conditioning company a temporary reprieve from the mandate.
The plaintiffs in the cases range from construction firms to Christian bookstores and are owned by Catholics, evangelicals and Mennonites.
In court papers, business owners say they try to run their businesses in line with the tenets of their faiths. Their most common — and, many say, strongest — argument is that the mandate violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, aimed at preventing laws that substantially undercut an individual’s free exercise of religion. The analysis gets tricky, however, when business owners equate themselves and their personal principles with their rights as businesses, Mr. Jost said.
“Corporations exist for a reason,” he said. “They clearly wouldn’t be saying that if the corporation was being sued for a tort.”
Having said that, “I don’t see this as an easy case at all,” Mr. Jost added. “And that’s evidenced by the fact that the courts have been all over the place.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in 11 of the cases in support of the mandate, noting that it does not force the business owners to use contraception, directly provide it to employees or endorse its use.View Entire Story
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Tom Howell Jr. covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
By Richard Rahn
Imprecise tax laws leave room for agency abuse and corruption
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
A collection of communities writers columns on Benghazi
Consummate traveler Todd DeFeo explores the unique stories that make destinations worth going to.
Looking at pop culture, politics and social issues.
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall
NRA kicks off annual convention
California wildfires wreak havoc