U.S. appeals court backs employer in 'contraception mandate' case

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON | Fri Nov 1, 2013 11:50am EDT

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court in Washington joined other courts on Friday by ruling for an employer who raised religious objections to a provision of the 2010 U.S. healthcare law requiring companies to provide insurance that covers birth control.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of Catholic brothers Francis and Philip Gilardi, owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, who do not want to provide insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion.

The legal question of whether employers can exercise their religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to avoid complying with the so-called "contraception mandate" is almost certain to eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Friday's ruling, the court said the corporations did not have First Amendment rights to press a claim but that the two brothers, as shareholders, did.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-usa-courts-healthcare-idUSBRE9A00PW20131101

[Mz Pip]

1. Dumb

Do these guys have a problem with their employees using the money they earn from their employment to buy contraception, sterilization or abortion?

Technically they are still paying for it.

[kenfrequed]

11. Typical religionists

Honestly, if they had actual respect for the first amendment they would not be asking the government to impose their religious beliefs on their employees medical decisions.

[reACTIONary]

20. Incredibly stupid....

Shareholders can impose their religious beliefs on a corporation in defiance of the law? So any one of thousand of shareholders can impose his will? Or a majority of shareholders can impose religious policies on the minority? Very dumb.

[SunSeeker]

16. It is even dumber in terms of the law; the shareholders and corporations are separate legal entities

If the corporation and the shareholder are one and the same, then the whole purpose of corporations--to create a separate legal entity to shield shareholders from the corporation's liability--is defeated. If they want to go this route, then they better be prepared to lift the corporate veil for ALL purposes, like when a corporation screws consumers or pollutes the environment. Right now, the shareholders are protected from liability from those sort of lawsuits except in a narrow range of circumstances when the corporation is undercapitalized and used ias a front by the owner. Under this ruling, no such showing needs to be made to deem the corporation and the shareholders as one and the same.

[24601]

25. Not exactly - according to my business law understanding. Corporations have a clear fiduciary

responsibility to shareholders. The reverse, however, is not the case. The shareholder has no commensurate responsibility to the corporation. If that were the case, what would be the legal status of any individual who hold shares of stock in competing corporations? It likely would be very difficult to purchase any mutual fund that did not invest in companies competing with each other.

[SunSeeker]

26. Are you saying a corp has a fiduciary duty to implement its shareholders' religious views?

Otherwise, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

[denverbill]

2. Obama should compromise. No contraception coverage in exchange for paid maternity leave.n/t

[LeftyMom]

4. How much of YOUR paid benefits are you willing to bargain away?

Women earned those benefits with their labor.

[denverbill]

5. My post was mostly joking, since paid maternity leave would probably cost employers way more.

And I seriously doubt any of these 'pro-life' employers would offer that in exchange.

[valerief]

3. Women hating creeps. nt

[warrant46]

8. It's the Catholic Church and other American Taliban Religions

What would happen if the Taliborn religion didn't want any kind of human interference in health.

Like Immunizations etc

Oops Stem Cell research--

Hey Rome how's that trial of Galileo working out ?

[OneCrazyDiamond]

6. If this stands

it sounds like a lot of women will quit working at places like this.

That can't be good for business.

[blkmusclmachine]

17. These businesses should be forced to put a fish on their front door, to ward away the nonzealots.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

24. That's a great idea.

After a few days in the sun, the fish will help cover the smell of bull $H1T coming out of said businesses.

[alc]

7. when will employers drop coverage that goes against their religion?

Some employer policy requirements go into affect for 2015? (a different issue than the employer mandate)

So employers can provide "non-compliant" policies next year and decide to drop coverage for 2015 (e.g. my wife's company's long-time policy is allowed in 2014 but not 2015. the insurer won't "update" it but will require them to pick a different policy).

The decision to drop 2015 coverage for employees will likely be announced right before October 2014 enrollment (just before the elections). It's already cheaper in most cases for employers to drop coverage. Giving them an extra religious incentive is likely to push a few over the edge.

I'd rather see the administration allow religious exemptions and add "contraception riders" as an option individuals can purchase VERY cheap on the exchange. They could probably have regulators allow employer policies to charge as much with or without contraception, then sell the rider for $1/year if you get it through your employers insurer (or $100/year but mostly subsidized). Someone in DC needs to start thinking out-of-the-box and actually trying to make everyone happy rather than just fighting every objection (on the ACA and other issues, Rs and Ds)

[JoeyT]

9. I wonder if they'd rule the same way if it were a

Jehovas Witness employer demanding his employees not be given blood transfusions. Or a Christian Scientist demanding no medical care other than prayer for their employees.

Ok, I don't really wonder that. I know damned well they wouldn't. That would hurt men too.

[christx30]

19. The problem isn't

"This is what I believe so you must do it." They aren't stopping people from buying their own contraception, even with their paycheck from where they work.
Their argument is "you can do what you want, but I won't pay for it." And I can KIND of understand where they are coming from. If the requirement was, say, coverage for female genital mutilation, I'd say "hell no" to that. I would refuse to pay for that and damn the law that told me it would have to. I would not see it as a war against woman. I would view it as my way of trying to protect women. You do whatever terrible thing you want with your ______. Lord knows I couldn't stop you if I wanted to. But don't expect me to help you do it. You 're on your own there.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Compensation should reflect the employEEs wishes.

Assholes.

[geek tragedy]

12. What a garbage opnion. What if shareholders object to interracial blood transfusions? nt

[Judi Lynn]

13. Unbelievable. n/t

[SunSeeker]

14. This is the result of Bush packing the federal courts...and why the GOP is blocking Obama appointees

The GOP has molded the federal courts into their Teahadist image. Sickening.

[pothos]

15. and yet they get hysterical about "sharia law"

how is this any different? keep your religion off our bodies.

[kenfrequed]

21. Yup

The republicans talk about "Sharia" law all day long but they never point out the aspects of law they would see imposed that matches up with Sharia.

[JesterCS]

18. Sorry but

a workplace is NOT religious. The people are. When I see Walmart Church of Christ, then they can complain

[locks]

22. What else?

If an employer believes in Christian Science does this mean he does not have to cover surgery, medications, vaccinations or hospitalizations for his employees? If he is an orthodox Jew does this mean he does not have to cover an employee who gets an illness from eating pork? If he believes smoking does no harm can he keep the question off his employees' health records? If he thinks God doesn't want women to have health care can he deny them coverage? If he thinks gays brought a disease on themselves can he stop them from getting medications? If he believes in abstinence can he drop my health care if I get pregnant?

[locks]

23. Rachel Maddow

Just now, after reminding us how horrible Bush's appointments to the federal appeals courts were, especially Janice Brown who wrote the decision today, said "Does this mean a Christian Scientist employer can tell his employees he will offer them a plan which covers nothing!"
And we will be stuck with these god-awful judges for their lifetimes.