Contraception Mandate Hits Legal Hurdles; Conflicting Rulings Set Course for High Court
Byline: Tom Howell Jr., THE WASHINGTON TIMES
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.
I think the case is probably heading for the Supreme Court, said Timothy Jost, a health care
scholar at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. We already have a split in the circuits.
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.
It's way beyond a Catholic issue, Becket Fund spokeswoman Emily Hardman said, noting the heavy involvement of Protestant organizations. These are devout pro-life institutions.
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. …