Newland v. Sebelius
U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Colorado, July 27, 2012
The plaintiff in this case is a for-profit, secular employer, that adheres to the Catholic denomination of the Christian faith. The company directors “seek to run Hercules in a manner that reflects their sincerely held religious beliefs” and have implemented within the company a program designed to build their corporate culture based on Catholic principles.
Because the Catholic Church condemns the use of contraception, the company’s self-insured plan does not cover abortifacent drugs, contraception, or sterilization. The problem arises since the health insurance plan is not “grandfathered” under the ACA, does not qualify as a “religious employer” within the meaning of the preventive care regulations; nor does it fall within the act’s “safe harbor.”
The problem is that, under the ACA, the employer will be required to either include no-cost coverage for contraception in its group health plan or face monetary penalties. Faced with a choice between complying with the ACA or complying with their religious beliefs, the employer filed the instant suit challenging the women’s preventive care coverage mandate as violative of Religious Freedom Reformation Act, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court issued a temporary injunction exempting the employer from being forced to provide health insurance benefits that include contraceptives beginning November 1. It’s decision was based on the extensive planning involved in preparing and providing its employee insurance plan together with the uncertainty as to whether the matter would be resolved before the coverage effective date, thus triggering the likelihood of imminent irreparable harm.
The court in its final remark said, “I take this opportunity to emphasize the ad hoc nature of this injunction. The government’s arguments are largely premised upon a fear that granting an exemption to the plaintiffs will necessarily require granting similar injunction to all other for-profit, secular corporations voicing religious objections to the preventive care coverage mandate. This injunction is, however, premised upon the alleged substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion – not to any alleged burden on any other party’s free exercise of religion. It does not enjoin enforcement of the preventive care coverage mandate against any other party.”
For a copy of this decision, click here.