Obamacare: Court declines company request to block contraception mandate

In all, more than 50 companies have challenged the Obamacare contraception mandate on religious grounds. Given a split in how appeals courts have ruled, it’s likely the US Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/ AP Photo/ File
President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius leave the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, after the president announced the revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control in Feb. 2012. The legal challenges over religious freedom and the birth control coverage requirement in Obama’s health care overhaul appear to be moving toward the U.S. Supreme Court.

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the owners of a Michigan company do not have legal standing to seek an exemption from providing certain forms of contraception required under Obamacare that company owners consider religiously offensive and immoral.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the owners of Autocam Corp. and Autocam Medical asking the courts to block a government requirement that the company provide their 661 US-based employees with access to abortifacients and other forms of contraception that violate the owners’ religious beliefs.

The companies are owned by John Kennedy and other members of his family, who are devout members of the Roman Catholic Church. They say they seek to run their businesses in full accord with their Christian beliefs – including a commitment to provide their workers with medical benefits.

But they argue that the Obamacare contraception requirement forces them to pay for birth-control methods that are incompatible with their faith. The mandate requires them to choose between adhering to their Catholic beliefs or paying the Internal Revenue Service $19 million in annual fines.

The ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals marks the third decision by a federal appeals court in an ongoing legal battle by more than 50 companies challenging the Obamacare contraception mandate on religious grounds.

So far two appeals courts have upheld the contraception mandate, while a third has agreed to a corporation’s request to block it.

The appeals-court split makes it likely that the US Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue.

The three-judge panel ruled that Mr. Kennedy and other members of his family cannot challenge the contraception mandate because it imposes a requirement on their corporations rather than on them personally.

After eliminating the Kennedys from the litigation, the court went on to rule that the lawsuit could not proceed on behalf of Autocam because a for-profit corporation is not a person capable of exercising the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

“The decision to comply with the mandate falls on Autocam, not the Kennedys,” the court said. “For this reason, the Kennedys cannot bring their claims in their individual capacities under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)], nor can Autocam assert the Kennedys’ claims on their behalf.”

The court next addressed whether RFRA protects a corporation from government infringement of religious rights. The Sixth Circuit panel noted that RFRA established a right to sue for any “person” whose religious exercise has been burdened.

“We agree with the government that Autocam is not a ‘person’ capable of ‘religious exercise’ as intended by RFRA,” the panel said.

The appeals court said that if it agreed with lawyers for Autocam, such a ruling would “lead to a significant expansion of the scope of the rights the Free Exercise Clause protected.”

The court noted that the Supreme Court has recognized that sole proprietors enjoy the right to free exercise of religion. But it said the high court had “never recognized similar rights on behalf of corporations pursuing secular ends for profit.”

Lawyers for Autocam argued that the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that First Amendment free-speech protections apply to corporations. The free exercise of religion clause is also found in the First Amendment and should also apply to corporations, they said.

The appeals court rejected the argument. There was prior case law supporting the free-speech decision, the panel said, but no similar body of law supporting the view that a for-profit corporation could be deemed a “person” under RFRA.

The American Civil Liberties Union praised the panel’s decision.

“Religious liberty is a fundamental right, and everyone should be free to practice their beliefs as they see fit,” Brigitte Amiri of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project said in a statement.

“However, companies cannot break the law by withholding coverage for health services just because they have a religious objection,” Ms. Amiri said. “Nearly every woman uses contraception at some point in her life. This law ensures employers do not discriminate against their workers by making it difficult for them to obtain the care they need.”

The case is Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius (12-2673).

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.