WASHINGTON — A federal judge has issued an order shielding a Michigan business from a requirement of the new health care law to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives at no charge to female employees.
The judge, Robert H. Cleland of the Federal District Court in Detroit, said last week that the requirement could infringe on “the sincere exercise of religious beliefs” by the owner of the company. He agreed to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the government from enforcing the requirement against two of the plaintiffs, Daniel Weingartz and his family-owned business, Weingartz Supply Co., in Utica, Mich.
Mr. Weingartz, a Roman Catholic, said he had devised a health plan that, in keeping with his religious beliefs, excluded coverage of contraceptives.
His business, a secular for-profit company, sells outdoor power equipment and employs about 170 people.
Judge Cleland is the second judge to issue such an order. In July, a federal district judge in Colorado issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the contraceptive mandate against Hercules Industries, a maker of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment.
In September, a federal district judge in St. Louis rejected a similar challenge. The judge, Carol E. Jackson, said that the plaintiffs, a Missouri company and its owner, “remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives.”
Individuals, businesses, hospitals, schools and universities have filed more than three dozen lawsuits challenging the requirement for employers and health plans to cover contraceptives.
Many plaintiffs, like Mr. Weingartz and Hercules, have invoked the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That law provides that officials may not burden a person’s exercise of religion unless they can show “a compelling governmental interest” and use “the least restrictive means” of advancing that interest.
The Obama administration said it had two compelling reasons for the contraceptive mandate: promoting public health and “gender equality.” It quoted Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who said in Senate debate on the legislation: “Women have different health needs than men, and these needs often generate additional costs. Women of childbearing age spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men.”
Moreover, the Obama administration said, providing a religious exemption to companies like Weingartz Supply and Hercules would allow the owners of secular businesses to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, many of whom may not share the owners’ convictions.
Mr. Weingartz should not be allowed to “impose his religious beliefs on the corporation’s group health plan or its 170 employees,” the Justice Department said in court documents.
Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, has assailed the contraceptive coverage requirement as a threat to religious liberty. If elected, he has said, he will work to abolish it, along with the rest of President Obama’s health care overhaul.
The new health care law generally requires employers to provide women with coverage at no cost for “preventive care and screenings.”
Under this provision, the administration says, employers must cover sterilization and the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including emergency contraceptive pills, like those known as ella and Plan B One-Step. Employers who do not provide such coverage will be subject to financial penalties, starting in 2014.
The administration has agreed to exempt “religious employers” if they meet several criteria: their purpose is to inculcate religious values, they primarily employ and serve people who share their religious tenets and they are recognized as nonprofit organizations under federal tax law.
Judge Cleland decided, in effect, to freeze the current situation while he weighs competing claims by the Obama administration and Weingartz Supply.
“Neither plaintiffs nor the government have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits,” Judge Cleland wrote.
But in issuing a preliminary injunction, he said he was guided by rulings of the Supreme Court, which has held, “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
Judge Temporarily Blocks Mandate on Birth Control
This article
Judge Temporarily Blocks Mandate on Birth Control
can be opened in url
http://newsfocuses.blogspot.com/2012/11/judge-temporarily-blocks-mandate-on.html
Judge Temporarily Blocks Mandate on Birth Control
