Posted on 03/28/2014 3:01:14 AM PDT by markomalley
A federal judge in Atlanta ruled Wednesday that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Savannah are "entirely exempt" from the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act, including a provision that would let their female employees or female family members secure contraceptive coverage from their third-party insurers.
U.S. District Judge William Duffey Jr. also permanently enjoined the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from enforcing the contraceptive mandate against Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese, a nonprofit organization that provides social services; and Catholic Education of North Georgia Inc., which operates five Catholic schools that educate nearly 12,000 students and employ more than 4,800 teachers and administrators.
The judge also permanently barred HHS, the U.S. Labor Department and the U.S. Treasury from enforcing federal regulations associated with the mandate that would require Catholic Charities and Catholic Education of North Georgia to notify their third-party insurers that they did not intend to offer contraceptive coverage. That notification—called a self-certification form—would trigger a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires third-party insurers to make contraceptive coverage available to employees whose employers won't cover contraception for religious reasons.
Duffey also held that the federal government's interests in promoting public health and providing women with equal access to health care was not compelling in this case "because the contraceptive mandate does not apply to the insurance plans of millions of women in this country."
"Grandfathered health plans, small businesses and religious employers are all exempt from the contraceptive mandate," he wrote. "The government's claim that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the accommodation against [Catholic Education of North Georgia] and Catholic Charities because it seeks to promote the uniform availability of contraceptive products and services is severely undermined by the exemptions to the contraceptive mandate that leave millions of women without coverage for contraceptive care."
The Atlanta suit was filed in 2012 by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta, Archbishop Wilton Gregory, Christ the King Catholic School, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Savannah and Bishop John Hartmayer.
The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to include preventive care for women. Those services include all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, including emergency contraceptives (also known as the "morning after" pill), sterilization procedures and associated education and counseling. Under the law, group health plans sponsored by some religious employers are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. A key question raised by the litigation is just how broadly those exemptions may extend.
In Atlanta, the plaintiff religious institutions are represented by Stephen Forte, a partner at Smith Gambrell & Russell, and Jones Day partners David Monde and Kendrick Smith. U.S. Justice Department lawyers in Washington are defending the federal government in the litigation.
"We are pleased with Judge Duffey's well-reasoned opinion," said Forte, "and we believe it validates our position protecting a fundamental right of religious institutions to freely exercise their religious freedoms and beliefs."
Attorneys for the Catholic Church in Atlanta and Savannah had argued that the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandates impermissibly interfere with the rights of religious institutions to practice the tenets of their faiths—namely faith-based objections to birth control, abortion and sterilization—without governmental interference. At the heart of the Atlanta suit is core Catholic doctrine—a belief "that sexual union should be reserved to married couples so committed to each other that they are open to the creation of life" and that "artificial interference with the creation of life," whether through abortion, sterilization or contraception, contradicts those core beliefs, according to the Atlanta Archdiocese complaint.
Government lawyers agreed that churches, church conventions or associations of churches that are exempt from federal income taxes—including the archdiocese of Atlanta and the Savannah diocese—are exempt from the contraceptive mandate. But the government maintains that religious-affiliated organizations such as Catholic schools and charities must certify their religious objections, triggering third-party coverage of contraception, which the Catholic groups oppose on the same religious grounds.
New federal rules establish an "accommodation" for group health plans that may be exempt from the contraceptive mandate. If an organization is covered by a self-insured health plan and opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required by the Affordable Care Act, if it is a nonprofit and holds itself out as a religious organization, that organization may self-certify that it does not intend to provide contraceptive coverage, the order said.
That self-certification, the judge's order noted, triggers separate regulations that require the third-party administrator of an employer's self-insurance plan to provide the preventive services at no cost to the eligible organization or plan participants. Insurance companies and third-party health insurance administrators then would be reimbursed for the coverage by a reduction in federal fees.
A self-insured plan that fails to provide preventive services or a nonexempt organization that fails to execute a self-certification form is subject to a fine of $100 a day for each affected beneficiary. If an eligible organization chooses to avoid the requirement to provide contraceptive services for women by canceling its health plan, it is subject to annual penalties of $2,000 per full-time employee.
Duffey held that the case required "a critical evaluation of whether the requirements of the accommodation impose a substantial burden on these Plaintiffs' religious exercise."
"In this case, [Catholic Education of North Georgia] and Catholic Charities are compelled by the final rules to provide a self-certification form to their [third-party administrator]," Duffey's order said. The rules also require the plaintiffs "to state their objection to the services and products that the ACA mandates, and then require the plaintiffs to take affirmative action that enables a third party to provide to the plaintiffs' employees the very services to which plaintiffs have a sincerely held religious objection. The manner in which the self-certification form is designed forces the plaintiffs to take action in direct contradiction to what they believe. At its core, the self-certification form requires [Catholic Education of North Georgia] and Catholic Charities to modify their behavior when the final rules compel them to sign and deliver a document that is designed by the government to set in motion delivery of contraceptive products and services to which they so strenuously object."
If the religious nonprofits refuse to self-certify, Duffey said in his order that the government then "places pressure on them to either provide contraceptive coverage on their own or face a fine of $100 per day for each affected beneficiary. If [Catholic Education of North Georgia] and Catholic Charities cancel their health plans altogether to avoid the contraceptive mandate, they may be subject to an annual penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee."
Duffey concluded "that the purpose and effect of the self-certification form is to enable the provision of contraceptive coverage. … [I]t is a government imposed device that pressures the plaintiffs into facilitating the contraceptive coverage to which they have sincerely held religious objections."
"Without the self-certification form, a [third-party administrator] is not authorized to provide coverage, and a [third-party administrator] cannot seek federal reimbursement plus 10% for margin and overhead."
The order continued: "The record here persuasively establishes the legal and practical burden the accommodation and the certification requirement place on [Catholic Education of North Georgia] and Catholic Charities. The accommodation thus imposes substantial pressure on the plaintiffs to modify their behavior and violate their religious beliefs, including by enabling and facilitating contraceptive coverage to which they have strong religious objections."
That, in turn, "places substantial pressure on Catholic Charities and [Catholic Education of North Georgia] to either compromise their religious beliefs or suffer the onerous economic consequence of adhering to what they believe."
Duffey also determined that the regulatory requirements and federal incentives "support the very real possibility, if not probability, that a [third-party administrator] will provide contraceptive coverage voluntarily. If the [third-party administrator] voluntarily complies with the contraceptive mandate, plaintiffs' complicity in a scheme that results in the delivery of products and services in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs is undiminished," he wrote. "If the [third-party administrator] voluntarily complies with the contraceptive mandate, the government imposes the additional burden to unconstitutionally prohibit the plaintiffs from influencing the [third-party administrator] to not provide coverage that they vehemently and sincerely oppose."
A comment from the Justice Department could not be obtained Wednesday afternoon.
In court pleadings, the government took issue with assertions by the plaintiffs "that the mere act of certifying that they are eligible for an accommodation is a substantial burden on their religious exercise because, once they make the certification, their employees will be able to obtain contraceptive coverage through other parties."
"This extraordinary contention," government lawyers argued, "suggests that plaintiffs not only object to contracting, arranging, paying, or referring for contraceptive coverage themselves, but also seek to prevent the women who work for their organizations from obtaining such coverage, even if through other parties."
The Atlanta Archdiocese case is among 91 such suits across the country that have targeted the contraceptive mandate, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. In 53 cases, including the Atlanta case, federal judges have granted injunctions sought by religious institutions or private companies that asserted religious objections to contraceptives. Judges have denied injunction requests in seven other cases. Eleven have been dismissed, according to the Becket Fund.
That is the only possible constitutional ruling, and I thank God that the judge followed the Constitution. I’m still disgusted with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Sebelius over their immeasurable evil in attempting to impose this requirement, but it’s nice that a judge saw the light.
Wait until Quisling Roberts gets through manipulating the language and intent.
Will not happen.
I agree with that. The really insightful part of this judge's ruling that struck me was this:
Duffey also held that the federal government's interests in promoting public health and providing women with equal access to health care was not compelling in this case "because the contraceptive mandate does not apply to the insurance plans of millions of women in this country.""Grandfathered health plans, small businesses and religious employers are all exempt from the contraceptive mandate," he wrote. "The government's claim that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the accommodation against [Catholic Education of North Georgia] and Catholic Charities because it seeks to promote the uniform availability of contraceptive products and services is severely undermined by the exemptions to the contraceptive mandate that leave millions of women without coverage for contraceptive care."
The law, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, says that the government has an extra burden in the case of religion to prove they have a serious, compelling reason to over-ride anyone's religious freedom.
This judge is basically saying that the government is handing out exemptions right and left on this "serious, compelling reason" and that it thereby demonstrates that their reason doesn't really rise to the level of serious and compelling and necessary to over-ride a religious freedom.
This is an honest, insightful judge.
I hadn't thought of that, but it is right on the money. You can't run around saying, "This is serious, life-threatening, critical and we have to overturn the 1st amendment over this" and then turn around and say, "Except for my friends over here who are getting exemptions 'cause none of this is really that critical."
This is a direct violation of the RFRA and thence to the 1st Amendment.
Finally, a little sanity !!!!
This is good constitutional news...
...at least until the supremely political court renders their political decisions.
....This is good constitutional news...
Well, perhaps not. It is the equivalent of Dingy Harry’s reimbursement of stolen campaign funds. It does not punish the crime.
Worse, it sets a precedent for enforcing only the bits and pieces of law that somehow become unobjectionable.
The whole law must be stricken
Good point.
But unfortunately, we may have to eat this elephant one bite at a time.
He was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by G.W. Bush.
He was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by G.W. Bush.
It is the statist substitute for the “necessary and proper” requirement to implement enumerated powers.
It is unlikely that Judge Duffey’s ruling will stand.
Here there obviously is such another way: the government could simply provide free contraceptives and related junk. There is no a priori reason why the employer has to be involved.
WoW!
Can’t wait to see what happens next.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.