Ruling temporarily blocks contraception mandate

Thursday, November 29, 2012

By JIM SALTER

Associated Press

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal appeals court has issued an order temporarily blocking implementation of the contraception mandate of the federal health care law for a Missouri business owner.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday on behalf of Frank O’Brien and his company, O’Brien Industrial Holdings LLC of St. Louis.

At least three dozen suits have been filed around the country challenging the requirement that workplace health plans cover birth control. O’Brien, a devout Catholic, claimed in his suit that the requirement infringes on his religious beliefs.

U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson dismissed the suit in September, but the appeals court panel halted implementation for O’Brien’s business pending outcome of appeals of Jackson’s ruling. The one-sentence appeals panel ruling did not offer an explanation for the 2-1 decision.

“The order sends a message that the religious beliefs of employers like Frank O’Brien must be respected by the government,” said O’Brien’s attorney, Francis Manion of the American Center for Law and Justice, an anti-abortion legal organization based in Washington. “We have argued from the beginning that employers like Frank O’Brien must be able to operate their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, not the values of the government.”

The ACLJ said the order is the first decision from a federal appeals court for litigation challenging the contraception mandate.

Messages left with Michelle Bennett, attorney for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, were not returned. But American Civil Liberties Union attorney Anthony Rothert, who also argued on behalf of the contraception mandate, said the ruling was not unexpected.

“These are serious, weighty questions that deserve serious attention from the court of appeals, so maintaining the status quo while they decide the case is not a huge setback,” Rothert said.

O’Brien Industrial Holdings is a secular company with 87 employees engaged in mining, processing and distributing refractory and ceramic materials and products. A statue of Jesus sits in the main lobby. Its statement of values includes references to the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments.

The original suit filed in March said the contraception mandate forces the company to make a choice between complying with the law or facing “ruinous fines that would have a crippling impact on their ability to survive economically.”

Mandatory coverage for contraception has been among the most contentious issues of the health care law. In June, demonstrators gathered on Capitol Hill and in more than 100 places around the country in opposition to the mandate.

Several states have joined a lawsuit to try and block the part of the law that requires contraception coverage. The suit argues that the rule violates the rights of employers that object to the use of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

Administration officials have said individual decisions about whether to use birth control, and what kind, remain in the hands of women and their doctors.

More like this story

spelchek 6 months, 3 weeks ago

A sad day that a business owner has to fight his government for religious freedom. An ever over arching, heavy handed government with limitless resources is flexing it's muscle against it's people. A sad day indeed.

Sequoia 6 months, 3 weeks ago

When you're operating as a corporation, you don't have "religious freedom."

A corporation is a creature of the law. It's a legal form that encourages risk-taking by allowing people to pool capital and invest it without putting their personal assets at risk.

A corporation is a legal form. A corporation must follow the same laws as all other corporations and business legal entities. It is not a human being with a heart, a mind and a soul. Only an individual human being has religious freedom. A legal entity, by definition, cannot have religious freedom.

By insisting on an idea of "religious freedom" that includes corporations, church hierarchies, nations, states, and other institutions, I suggest you are diluting the true meaning of "religious."

The idea of religoius freedom for corporations denies the truth of how the Holy Spirit manifests itself in the world: Jesus gave it to us like a quiet breath (John 20:22) that only a human being can feel.

Legal papers filed at the Secretary of State's office cannot feel this, therefore they have no "religious freedom."

Only you can know the holy spirit. It doesn't speak through official channels. It doesn't use a P.R. firm or the bully pulpit. It's a wind that's barely there. A trickle of water. Shhhhh. Don't miss it!

Don't give unto Ceaser what belongs to God. Don't give away your treasure. It's so easy to get confused.

connor 6 months, 3 weeks ago

So "Church hierarchies" Shouldn't have the "Idea" of Religious Freedom?

Liberalism really is a thinking disorder.

Sequoia 6 months, 3 weeks ago

No. The true conservative ought to be skeptical of ANY AND ALL institutions, even those that assume holiness as part of their mission statement.

Only the individual has religious freedom. No institution does, or possibly could. Not a single one.

newone 6 months, 3 weeks ago

It's a sad day when government tell's a company they have to pay for birthcontrol but it isn't a sad day when government tell's a woman what she can and can not do with her body or when goverment tells someone who they are allowed to marry? Hummmmmmm, interesting.

newone 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Yeah a women who could die due to pregnancy or a woman who was raped by her father really do it on a whim... you are forcing your views and morality on others just because you think it is wrong doesn't mean it is ok for the Government to butt it's nose into something it shouldn't!!!!

JCLifer 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Wonder why rape is not punished very severely? Seems if the punishment was severe, there might be a deterrent effect. Our penal system coddles rather than punishes.

newone 6 months, 3 weeks ago

So that is your excuse for abortion but what about same sex marraige, how is the government saving the people from that?

asb 6 months, 3 weeks ago

The feds, and even local governments, restrict the enforcement of dogmatic religion-based false morality in state matters, as clearly outlined in the constitution. restricting your dogmatic moral oppression is also based on common sense. Your morals are different than mine, and therefore giving one of us a superior position is oppressive. That protection, and right for local communities to decide local issues, has not changed. Your labeling of same-sex marraige as repulsive and pointless proves how important it is to have your sick and oppressive morality restricted in state matters. Naturally, if your dogma considers evicerating cats to be holy, and local or federal laws forbid it, that's oppressive. The solution is to implicitly restrict all dogma rather than explicitly protect cats. Since you would insist, the explicit protection is required. Your offensive faux Christian dogma is the danger to the rest of us, not the devolution of human morality.

John 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Among all of your rambling, ASB, you use the phrase "false-morality." Just what in the heck is "false-morality" That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

jcguy25 6 months, 3 weeks ago

We has a country are constantly evolving and realizing that allowing two consenting adults of the same sex to marry is not a big deal, children raised by same sex parents are just as healthy and productive to society as those raised by opposite sex parents. It is people such as yourself trying to dictate that your morals are better than everyone else that doesn't hold the same beliefs. It is those people I find repulsive, meaningless and foolish.

Paroquet 6 months, 3 weeks ago

I beg to differ there Graceful. It is not irrational in the least. The fact that you label it irrational speaks well of your own inability to rationalize. You can't be against abortion and not do your part to support adoption or open your home to fosterns in the same breath--that's what Sharia Law is; it dictates morals to the extent that the dictator owes nothing and is responsible for nothing except persecution and prosecution of behaviors they find objectionable which have no effect upon them except offending their moral sensitivities particular to their upbringing.

I can win my rational argument for as long as any anti-choice person out there isn't waiting with open arms to adopt or house a fostern.

I've never demonized you, Graceful. I have said, and you have corroborated, that you want some form of Sharia Law--Christian style. You want a theocracy excluding all faiths and belief systems aside from your own.

You can conclude what you like, but your conclusion is meritless. One from the other camp could say exactly the same of you. You're an extremist, that's fine. That puts you with the fringe base on one side. Your opposite also exists on the other side. Neither will budge. That makes those of us in the middle the ones that will make your decisions for you both.

Paroquet 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Track the DJIA for W's term. B.O. couldn't turn that avalanche around lickity split. As it sits now, the DIJA is stable where W. went on to push it over a cliff.

And point in fact, the guy was a dullard. Or worse, a puppet. Only person in the whitehouse who he could probably beat at tic-tac-toe might have been Dan Quayle.

Paroquet 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Fairytales? Hey, at least you read them so they must have some entertainment value.

And, um, it's usually the (R) side of the aisle that lets rivers and streams run polluted for as long as they can get away with it. Worked in that field. Saw the politics firsthand. What was funny was when they'd bully through and get what they wanted, only to have to tell that constituent five years later that they had to upgrade to the tune of 3x what treatment would've cost had it been built right the first time.

And don't kid yourself about "national forests". The taxpayer loses a dollar for every board-foot taken out of them by private companies. Then they're planted back not as a forest, but as a tree farm. You are against welfare, right?

JCLifer 6 months, 3 weeks ago

If the business owner doesn't want to buy this stuff, let his employees pay for it. If paying for this stuff is that big of a deal, let the employees leave if they don't like the terms of their employment.

Benefits are just that: benefits. They are not entitlements or mandatory items the government needs to force of employers and employees.

All this meddling and micro-management at the local level by the Federal Government is killing our economy and jobs. When is enough enough?

RobHunterJohnson 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Thats because of the Walmarts and the Bains of this country. The 1% ought to pay of this problem of Debt, I sure did not cause it at my meager salary' All the kaniving and back stabbing greed is not at the bottom of the pond. All I get is the Trickel Down? Rob

connor 6 months, 3 weeks ago

1% eh? So 1 out of every 100 people are now required to pay up for the other 99 because you feel you didn't help this along any? What about your argument that everyone uses roads and such? Seems like more than 1% should pay for that stuff.

asb 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Only their share Mr. Clay, only their share. Remember that most of the 99% will also be paying for their healthcare. The mandate is the issue, not the funding of healthcare.

RobHunterJohnson 6 months, 3 weeks ago

The irrational part of this is the blending of Religion and Goverment. The 1% did get us into this pickel, whether you like that Idea or not! The bottom of the pond, did not give out loans for homes that people could not pay for? Ect. Walmart provides a job, Walmart create the atmosphere for the entitlement society, you are so quick to refer too, by not working their employees full time! Walmart has created a group of working people with the hope of becoming full time, who cannot really get a job else where, until they give up what they have, how many employees can maintain a pace of 2 jobs, 70 hours a week? 30 at wally world and 40 somewhere else to get the insurance they need? The only prosperity BAIN created was for their own Greedy Selves, including the Morman Presidential pick of the Republican party. Bain did profit in China, or closing something down here in the USA, and parting off whatever they could to reap an end PROFIT? That is not creating JOBS here in the US, possibly in China, and where do you think the taxes went from those companies who were paying businesses before Bain stepped in? Your last sentence is not even worthy of comment! Politics and economics do not make RACISIM, or RELIGION. By the way I have given to programs to provide Ultra sound for young women, so quit lumping me in with your liberal thoughts. Rob

connor 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Economically no good will come from all this. My guess is part time jobs will become the mainstay as employers attempt to get out from under these laws and regulations. Health insurance is not the responsibility of the business it used to be a benefit that a business would offer to get and keep better employees now it is an entitlement and a cost of doing business.

Religiously however our government has been imposing limits to religious freedom for centuries although prohibiting religious activities is one thing enforcing "required" activities that go against religious beliefs is a different ball game.

Littleinvestor 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Part-time workers will have to have their insurance supported by their employers by the percentage of a standard 40 hour week they work for said employer, or at least that is my understanding. Really small employers are not affected at all (24 workers or fewer I believe) and the full effect is on those employers with 50 or more workers.

3633 6 months, 3 weeks ago

All I want to know is have these places been allowing it before now, what has changed??? Now was birth control a part of the insurance package before now????

JCLifer 6 months, 3 weeks ago

No, they have not been covering contraceptives before. ObamaCare is what has changed.

asb 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Some insurors covered contraception, some did not. Companies that cared didn't purchase from insurors that covered contraception. ACA requires that all health insurors include contraception in their coverage. Keep in mind that most coverage decisions will be determined by regulation and administration of the system, but some issues were recognized as critical including; pre-existing, older children, 100% of all insured, contraception, employer contributions, etc. The main reason contraception has become such an issue is it's use by the GOP as a lightning rod for religious conservatives. It may not survive long due to emotion rather than actuarial soundness, but any insuror will tell you that contraception does benefit their bottom line due to the costs of unplanned pregnancy. An employee-only funded rider could be offered instead. Universal healthcare saves every economy money. Every civilized country, now including the US, has it. Cost control is the major reason and the primary challenge. Making it a religious, or even just political, football is destructive. It must be managed. Posters above have claimed that government workers aren't really working, that the government is mandating the killing of innocent children, and that religious freedom is under attack. These are all falsehoods meant to degrade the public's respect for both the government in general, and government programs providing for our less well-off citizens in particular. It's tax dodging propaganda no matter what else you call it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

News Tribune