Bush-Appointed Judge Upholds Obama Administration’s Birth Control Coverage Rules

[DonViejo]

Source: ThinkProgress

On Friday, Judge Carol Jackson, a George H.W. Bush appointee to a federal court in Missouri, rejected a Catholic business owner’s challenge to the Obama Administration’s rules requiring employer health plans to cover birth control. Like the many copycat lawsuits asserting similar legal claims, the plaintiffs in this suit argued that the birth control rules substantially burden their faith by requiring them to pay for employee health benefits which might then in turn be used to pay for birth control. As Judge Jackson’s opinions explains, however, this argument proves too much:

The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer's health] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. 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. [It] 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. . . .

The health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an [] employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.

A key insight in this opinion is that salaries and health insurance can be used to buy birth control, so if religious employers really object to enabling their employees to buy birth control, they would have to not pay them money in addition to denying them comprehensive health insurance. An employer cannot assert a religious objection to how their employees choose to use their own benefits or their own money, because religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.”

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/01/931671/bush-appointed-judge-rejects-catholic-employers-challenge-to-birth-control-access-rules/

[MANative]

1. Absolutely LOVE the line about...

... because religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.”

That's exactly what I've been telling my religious nut-job friends since this whole controversy was manufactured.

[rfranklin]

2. Well, in that case they should withhold employees paychecks if they might buy contraceptives...

"Already, pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees."

That will be the next step for the righties who believe so much in "freedom." They will issue a type of "pay stamp" which can only be used to purchase goods and services which are approved by the employer.

[randome]

3. This entire health care and contraceptive 'controversy'...

...is not only putting a stake in the heart of the GOP but is weakening the Catholic Church as well.

Beauty.

[OregonBlue]

4. What a great ruling. Love the argument.

[Tx4obama]

5. K&R! LOVE IT :) n/t

[Tx4obama]

6. Kick! n/t

[QED]

7. I was so happy to read this.

I agree with other posters - the key phrase is "religious freedom is not a license to 'force one’s religious practices upon others.'”

I hope this is the beginning of a trend.

[DonViejo]

8. Hope the Supremes agree.

[Canuckistanian]

9. Very insightful ruling

This lawsuit was a clear attempt to impose someone else's religious beliefs at the expense of personal freedom = the pursuit of happiness.

I'm glad a federal court justice made this ruling.

[JoePhilly]

10. Very well stated.

[SpartanDem]

11. KR

[benld74]

12. Then HOW canMissouri get away with fining Aetna $millions for

providing policies in Missouri which essentially DO THE SAME THING? Aetna will now come back against Missouri on that fine, I gurantee it. And I HOPE they do.

[Delmette]

13. Thank you!!!

The last sentence sums it up nicely!

[Ohio Joe]

14. Thank you Judge Jackson

Well done.

[Skittles]

15. CORRECT!

religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.”

PREACH IT!!!!!!!!