ST. LOUIS • A federal judge in St. Louis has dismissed a claim that the 2010 health care reform law’s contraception mandate violates an employer’s religious freedom. It is believed to be the first decision on the merits among more than two dozen such lawsuits across the country.
O’Brien Industrial Holdings, owned by Frank O’Brien, a devout Catholic, filed notice Monday of appeal.
The law requires coverage of prescription birth control pills and implants at no cost to enrollees in all private health insurance policies, starting in 2013.
U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson ruled late Friday that the “regulations do not impose a ‘substantial burden’ on either Frank O’Brien or OIH, and do not violate (their) rights.”
O’Brien’s lawyer, Francis Manion, said he thinks Jackson’s ruling is “not well-supported by the law or logic.” He added, “Court of appeals, here we go.”
O’Brien sued the federal government in March, alleging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, forcing a choice between moral beliefs and stiff fines.
Jackson said O’Brien was free to engage in religious practice by not using contraception and encouraging employees not to either.
“RFRA is a shield, not a sword,” the judge wrote. “It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. RFRA does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own.”
Jackson also rejected the other lines of attack, saying that the mandate does not provide preferential treatment to any religion, and was passed to improve women’s access to health care and lessen the disparity between health care costs for men and women.
Government lawyers have declined comment.
Anthony Rothert of American Civil Liberties Union, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief, said Monday, “It’s happened time and again that people have used religion as an excuse why they should not have to obey a general law that applies to everyone.”
He said religion has been sued in the past to try to preserve racial segregation and unequal pay for men and women. “This is just the latest gloss on it. What they’re really trying to do is impose their religious views on their employees, which they’re not allowed to do.”
Manion said Jackson’s decision is at odds with acknowledgments from public officials that the law is a burden on people’s beliefs.
Both President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have said the mandate can impact religious liberty, and pledged to work with religious organizations.
Manion and The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, whose statistics were quoted by Jackson, said this was the first ruling on the merits among 30 similar suits.
Cases filed by several religious universities have been dismissed over timing issues. In late July, a Colorado company won a temporary delay to implementation of the law while its suit goes forward; the government is appealing.
“If a $100,000 fine isn’t a burden on religious liberty, I don’t know what is,” said Becket Fund lawyer Kyle Duncan, in a prepared statement. “This decision conflicts with what another federal judge has already decided about the mandate, and it is out of step with Supreme Court precedent.”
O’Brien’s company, at 4641 McRee Avenue in St. Louis, includes several businesses that process ceramic materials, and the charitable St. Nicholas Fund.
The company website says, “Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone’s personal belief system.”
Although there are several exemptions in the law, O’Brien’s company does not qualify. It has 87 employees (companies with fewer than 50 need not provide health insurance) and is not defined as a “religious” employer. Its existing health plan does cover contraception, something the company has said was inadvertently included several years ago, contrary to past practice and its intentions.
Their suit seeks to block enforcement when the insurance is renewed. Marion said he may seek an expedited appeal to try to get an appellate court ruling before Jan. 1.
