Judge overturns Mo. law on birth control coverage
Monday, March 18, 2013
By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has struck down a Missouri law exempting moral objectors from mandatory birth control coverage because it conflicts with an insurance requirement under President Barrack Obama’s health care law.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig cites a provision in the U.S. Constitution declaring that federal laws take precedence over contradictory state laws. But Fleissig emphasized that she was taking no position on the merits of the Obama administration policy, which requires insurers to cover contraception at no additional cost to women.
It was not immediately clear Monday whether the Missouri attorney general would appeal the ruling, which was dated Thursday but not publicized.
The Missouri law requires insurers to issue policies without contraception coverage if individuals or employers assert that the use of birth control violates their “moral, ethical or religious beliefs.” The state’s Republican-led Legislature overrode the veto of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon last September to enact the law, which appeared to be the first in the nation to directly rebut the Obama administration’s contraception policy.
Fleissig had issued a temporary restraining order against Missouri’s law last December. The law had been challenged by insurance providers, who feared they could be caught in legal quagmire by the differing federal and state requirements.
In her ruling, Fleissig wrote that the state law “is in conflict with, and pre-empted by, existing federal law” and “could force health insurers to risk fines and penalties by choosing between compliance with state or federal law.”
The judge noted that the federal law includes penalties of $100 per day per employee and an annual tax surcharge of $2,000 per employee for violations of its provisions. The state insurance department already issued orders seeking civil penalties against two insurers for not offering plans excluding contraception coverage as required by the Missouri law.
The ruling “clears up what law they have to write the policies under, and that’s all we were asking,” said Brent Butler, the government affairs director for the Missouri Insurance Coalition, an industry trade group that was one of the plaintiffs.
Although she struck it down, Fleissig did not issue a permanent injunction against Missouri’s law because she said the state insurance department had agreed not to enforce it and to withdraw its administrative complaints against the health insurers.
Among those supporting the Missouri law was Our Lady’s Inn, a St. Louis area nonprofit that provides homes and counseling for pregnant women. The organization had filed a court document saying it wanted to use the Missouri law to opt out of contraception coverage for its employees’ insurance policies.
“The point of the law was to tell health insurance companies that they’re supposed to honor the wishes — pro or con — of people who have religious or ethical objections to what’s in the policy,” said Timothy Belz, a St. Louis attorney who represented Our Lady’s Inn.
———
Follow David A. Lieb at: http://www.twitter.com/DavidALieb

Comments
kentheco 3 months ago
Proof that our elected officials would rather waste time then fix the problems under their control.
mmhh 3 months ago
I agree, Kentheco. My thoughts exactly. Wasting time and energy on things they know conflict with federal law just so they can look good to hordes of Missouri voters who aren't educated enough on the topics to know better!
connor 3 months ago
Not sure if that Judge is elected but the elected officials attempted to fix a problem and the Judge struck it down.
Forcing companies to provide contraceptives will simply make everyone's premiums go up.
JCLifer 3 months ago
But remember what Obama promised us: "If you like your present health plan, you can keep it".
connor 3 months ago
Yep I am sure all those folks busted down to part time and the ones who work for companies that will just pay the fine now are remembering that as well.
mmhh 3 months ago
Everyone is already paying for it, Connor, we have for years. The whole point to to reduce premiums overall over the long-term by preventing pregancies and other reproductive complications. You have to think smarter and more long-term to solve problems. Do you have any evidence that the small portion of employees who wanted prescription coverage and who are now getting it is somehow forcing organizations to lay off and downsize? Sounds like you bought into fear mongering!
connor 3 months ago
Sounds as if someone doesn't bother to read even the headlines, at least those that are not tailored to the Cleftwing, Feminist entitlement crowd. Many companies have already been laying off, cutting back and throwing out healthcare coverage. I have have seen a number of them linked off of Drudge.
In the rare cases that a woman has to have the hormone pills for true health reasons than it should require a doctors prescription to get them covered. Under Feminist controlled America Insurance premiums are already averaged out so that women, who use insurance more than men, pay the same rate. Therefore men are being forced to shoulder the cost of women's recreational pills among other healthcare costs that are gender specific.
RobHunterJohnson 3 months ago
Ther loser companies that are on the way out, starting with the two PIZZA guys! Rob
JCLifer 3 months ago
Wait til next year. We are going to see upheaval like never before. The penalty for not providing insurance to its employees is cheap compared to the cost of insurance. Many employers just plan to pay the penalty.
Employees will be free to go to the federal exchange portal to buy their own ObamaCare health insurance.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID