Skip to comments.Missouri business granted injunction against HHS mandate
Posted on 11/29/2012 3:16:53 PM PST by NYer
.- A federal appeals court on Nov. 28 granted a Catholic business owner in Missouri an injunction against the Department of Health and Human Services mandate that he says violates his religious freedom by forcing him to provide insurance coverage for morally objectionable drugs and procedures.
“The order sends a message that the religious beliefs of employers must be respected by the government,” said Francis Manion, Senior Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
The center is representing Frank O’Brien and his St. Louis-based business O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, which operates many businesses in ceramic materials exploration, mining and processing.
“We have argued from the beginning that employers like Frank O'Brien must be able to operate their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, not the values of the government,” Manion said Nov. 28. “We look forward to this case moving forward and securing the constitutional rights of our client.”
The HHS mandate requires that most businesses with 50 or more employees provide the coverage as “preventive care” for women. Violators face fines of $100 per employee per day.
The injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit blocks the implementation of the mandate for O’Brien’s business. In October, a federal district judge had dismissed the lawsuit.
O’Brien’s 87-employee business was the first private business to challenge the mandate.
The company’s website states that its mission is “to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society.” Its values statement stresses integrity in conduct “guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments” while also pledging not to discriminate based on anyone’s beliefs.
O’Brien has created several programs to help employees purchase homes, fund their children’s college education and save for retirement.
Missouri law mandates contraception coverage in employee health care plans, but exempts employers with religious objections.
The federal mandate’s present religious exemption applies only to non-profit organizations that primarily serve and employ people of the same religion and have the inculcation of religious values as their primary purpose. The exemption is so narrow that it may not apply to Catholic non-profit employers like colleges, health care systems and charities.
The Obama administration proposed a broader exemption in February, but its details are still unclear. President Obama’s re-election campaign attacked the Republican candidate Mitt Romney for supporting federal legislation that would secure a broader exemption.
Over 40 lawsuits have been filed against the HHS mandate, representing over 110 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs include Catholic dioceses, the University of Notre Dame and the EWTN Global Catholic Network as well as Protestant organizations like the Virginia-based Liberty University and the Bible publisher Tyndale House Publishers.
They say the mandate violates their religious freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution and federal law and forces them to provide coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have religious and moral objections.
The Christian-owned retailer Hobby Lobby is the largest private business to challenge the mandate on the grounds its owners object to providing abortion-causing drugs in their employee insurance plans.
The company is appealing a Nov. 20 federal court’s refusal of a request for a legal injunction against the mandate. The employer of over 13,000 full-time employees could face $1.3 million in daily fines if it does not comply.
You know what? This is a very slippery slope. While I am a devout Catholic and do not in any way, shape or form support abortion, if the law of the land is that religious beliefs prevail, we are more likely than not to get taken over by Islam. I don’t know what is the answer. I would have to analyze it some. There has to be an answer.
We need Catholics like you like we need Roberts.
Stand and be counted, or leave. Decide.
If you love contraception that much, we don’t need you.
The 0bama crowd created a real mess! Only by standing up the the marxists can we hope to regain some freedom.
The order sends a message that the religious beliefs of employers must be respected by the government, said Francis Manion, Senior Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What part of Congress shall enact no law that you do not understand?
They are not about to oppose the government ~ and that's what this is about, the imposition of government moral values on private individuals in violation of their own religious beliefs ~ see FIRST AMENDMENT.
Now, for why that's important, see SECOND AMENDMENT. The Huguenots refused to stack arms at the completion of the French Religious Wars. That kept them in business another century. Today both Protestants and Catholics agree there are limits on state intrusion into religious and moral issues.
From Catholic Vote email:
Dear Friend of CV,
Within hours of sending our email message yesterday, we got the news.
The Federal Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis last night agreed to block the implementation of the HHS Mandate against our client Catholic businessman Frank OBrien while we pursue our appeal of the lower court decision.
The court agreed with our request to put the breaks on the mandate while we challenge its constitutionality and pursue our case to restore religious freedom.
Why do you have such a tagline as to deny Jesus Christ?
was from the email too.
well I didn’t specify contraception, but I don’t approve of it either. And you do need Catholics like me, I think sex is for marriage, for procreation.
If you have the answer to my unanswered question, spit it out. My question is a very real concern. If we are going to allow moslems to exercise their freedom of religion, it includes murdering infidels, now do you get it? Can Congress enact a law prohibiting murders of infidels? Think, junior, think
“My question is a very real concern. If we are going to allow moslems to exercise their freedom of religion, it includes murdering infidels, now do you get it? Can Congress enact a law prohibiting murders of infidels? Think, junior, think”
We no longer have that luxury to be concerned about future battles. Our faith is under direct assault now by this current administration. Are you going to stand and be counted?
Then Hobby Lobby should get the same - seems two different courts- two different answers. another 0bamacare challenge going to scotus?
you were a little hard on him/her....that person was merely reminding us that if all religious arguements recieve equal consideration, Islam will give us a zillion headaches to deal with.
tell me how to “stand and be counted”, but I don’t think short sightedness benefits us. If I could find a conservative Catholic company to work for I would be overjoyed. I am on the other side of the state in Kansas City, where I would guess most of the Catholics voted Democrat.
Your example is pretty outlandish.
Islam and Sharia demands that certain hardships be imposed on non-Muslims. Our constitution protects us, the non-Muslims in this case. Muslims hate our Constitution for this reason.
Yes there is an answer. If people find that their religious beliefs are being restricted by the government, then the government is doing something it should not be doing and should butt out. This doesn't giver preference to Islam or any other religion. It just restricts the scope of government to what it aught to be.
Not under this administration.
We've lived for over 200 years with the First Amendment ans so far no Muslim emerged to claim a constitutional right to kill infidels.
The First Amendment indeed guarantees the Muslim the same rights as the Catholics: to exercise their religion unmolested by the government. If the government, for example, demanded that the Muslim eat pork, not take a break from work to pray, or denounce Mohammed, that would violate their right to exercise religion just like now O'Brian's rights are about to be violated, and we should stand up for the Muslims' rights as well.
If, hypothetically a religion were found that advocates murder, then obviously such would not be a religion the Founding Fathers had in mind as it would violate the rights of those outside of it, including the right to practice their religion and not be murdered for it.
We are fine with the First Amendment just the way it is written and as applied to any recognized religion, including Islam.
Unlike you assert -religious liberty has limits and the inalienable rights of others clearly qualify as rights that the government is tasked with protecting.
Government has no right to tell people what to buy for any reason and most assuredly for any inalienable reason -one that government is are specifically limited from as documented in the Constitution!
I hear your frustration, but we have to stand up for ourselves against this administration. This is a victory today for our own religious freedom. The more we stand up and insist that we be given an option to opt out of Obamacare, the better off we will be. If we do not stand up - then we will be crushed and it won’t matter whether sharia takes over, because we won’t be around to see it.
Standing up for ourselves isn’t shortsighted - you concentrate on the battle today - because if we lose this, there is no ‘tomorrow’.
(*) so far as I can tell from interviewing Muslims; Islam, like Protestantism does not have a single authority on these issues.
Whoever thought we would be dealing with government repression in the US
I understand sarcasm but not blasphemy.