Debate Over Corporate Funding of Contraception May Go to US Supreme Court
Provided by HG.org
A provision of the Affordable Care Act (also frequently referred to as “Obamacare”) requries that corporations of 50 or more employees must issue FDA-approved contraceptives as part of their health plan. However, a legal advocacy group has announced that it will ask the US Supreme Court to take up a Michigan manufacturing company’s challenge to the requirement.
The Thomas More Society made its announcement one day after its client, Autocam, lost its bid before a federal appeals court to gain relief from the “contraception mandate” tied to the new health care law. The company's owners, the Kennedy family, attempted to rely on its Roman Catholic beliefs to create a separation of church and state argument, suggesting that mandating corporations of a certain size to make contraception available to its employees abridged their Constitutional First Amendment right to freely practice their faith which they believe prohibits the use of contraceptives. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with this argument, saying that the Kennedy's personal beliefs did not extend to their corporation.
Supporters of the contraception mandate say women should be entitled to affordable birth control, and that corporate owners cannot press their religious beliefs onto a diverse set of employees at a secular company.
About thirty-six for-profit companies have sued over the mandate (with more expected before the end of the year), saying they must choose between violating their religious beliefs or dropping health coverage. Continuing to offer health coverage under the Affordable Care Act would require these corporations to pay heavy fines if they opted to ignore the requirement for contraception benefits. Conservatives and religious groups particularly object to insuring morning-after pills, because these groups equate the pills with abortion.
While many companies have gained temporary relief from the courts, two of the three decisions issued at the circuit-court level have sided with the Obama administration. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals took an opposing view in July when it granted Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based crafts franchise, an injunction that shields the company from the mandate until its case is decided on the merits. This split in the circuit courts of appeal makes the dispute ripe for review by the US Supreme Court, which is responsible for resolving such conflicts.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
Supporters of the contraception mandate say women should be entitled to affordable birth control, and that corporate owners cannot press their religious beliefs onto a diverse set of employees at a secular company.
About thirty-six for-profit companies have sued over the mandate (with more expected before the end of the year), saying they must choose between violating their religious beliefs or dropping health coverage. Continuing to offer health coverage under the Affordable Care Act would require these corporations to pay heavy fines if they opted to ignore the requirement for contraception benefits. Conservatives and religious groups particularly object to insuring morning-after pills, because these groups equate the pills with abortion.
While many companies have gained temporary relief from the courts, two of the three decisions issued at the circuit-court level have sided with the Obama administration. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals took an opposing view in July when it granted Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based crafts franchise, an injunction that shields the company from the mandate until its case is decided on the merits. This split in the circuit courts of appeal makes the dispute ripe for review by the US Supreme Court, which is responsible for resolving such conflicts.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
