Parting ways with all other appeals courts that have considered
the issue, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis on
Thursday issued a pair of decisions upholding orders by two lower
courts barring the government from enforcing the law's contraceptive
provisions against a group of religiously affiliated employers.
The split in the circuit courts created makes it more likely that
the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue in its coming term,
which begins in October and runs through June. Several employers
have already filed petitions with the court.
The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, requires
employers to provide insurance for their employees, including access
to contraception, sterilization and other preventative services for
women.
The law allows religiously affiliated non-profit employers to opt
out of paying for contraceptive coverage directly. Once they do,
insurers must provide the coverage separately at no extra cost to
the employee. Employers that do not follow the opt-out process face
a financial penalty.
Many employers have filed lawsuits against the government, claiming
that the opt-out process makes them complicit in providing
contraceptive coverage. Before Thursday, however, every appeals
court that considered the issue has rejected that argument.
Heartland Christian College and addiction services non-profit CNS
International Ministries Inc, both based in Missouri, and Dordt
College and Cornerstone University, both in Iowa, filed the lawsuits
before the 8th Circuit. They object to emergency contraceptives,
including Plan B from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd <TEVA.TA>,
which they believe are equivalent to abortion.
[to top of second column] |
The employers say the opt-out provision violates a 1993 federal law
called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Circuit Judge Roger Wollman, who wrote Thursday's decisions on
behalf of a three-judge panel, said the court must defer to the
employers' "sincere religious belief that their participation in the
accommodation process makes them morally and spiritually complicit
in providing abortifacient coverage."
A representative of the U.S. Department of Justice, which litigated
the cases for the government, was not immediately available for
comment.
The cases are Dordt College et al v. Burwell, No. 14-2726, and
Sharpe Holdings Inc et al v. U.S. Department of Human Services et
al, No. 14-1507, both in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th
Circuit.
(Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |