Judge sides with company on contraceptive coverage
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday temporarily prevented the Obama administration from forcing a Christian publishing company to provide its employees with certain contraceptives under the new health care law.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton granted a preliminary injunction sought by Tyndale House Publishers, which doesn't want to provide employees with contraceptives that it equates with abortion.
At issue are contraceptives such as Plan B and IUDs. If a woman already is pregnant, the Plan B pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg, and according to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. The Plan B pill may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. IUDs mainly work by blocking sperm but may also have the same uterus effect. To Tyndale, these methods are not morally different than abortion.
Tyndale, based in Carol Stream, Ill., says it provides its 260 employees with coverage for some contraceptives. The company and its president and CEO, Mark D. Taylor, filed the lawsuit against the Health and Human Services Department last month.
"The contraceptive coverage mandate affirmatively compels the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law and avoid the sanctions that would be imposed for their noncompliance," wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush. He said that if the company doesn't comply with the mandate, it is subject to government fines and lawsuits.
Walton acknowledged that the government has broad, compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring that women have equal access to health care, but he said the question "is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests," underlying "to the plaintiffs" in the text. Nothing in Walton's order applied to anyone other than Tyndale.
Walton said that the government hasn't offered any proof that mandatory insurance for the specific types of contraceptives that Tyndale objects to furthers the government's compelling interests.
Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers "should be free to do business according to the book that they publish."
He added: "The Obama administration is not entitled to disregard religious freedom."
The Health and Human Service Department declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton granted a preliminary injunction sought by Tyndale House Publishers, which doesn't want to provide employees with contraceptives that it equates with abortion.
At issue are contraceptives such as Plan B and IUDs. If a woman already is pregnant, the Plan B pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg, and according to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. The Plan B pill may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. IUDs mainly work by blocking sperm but may also have the same uterus effect. To Tyndale, these methods are not morally different than abortion.
Tyndale, based in Carol Stream, Ill., says it provides its 260 employees with coverage for some contraceptives. The company and its president and CEO, Mark D. Taylor, filed the lawsuit against the Health and Human Services Department last month.
"The contraceptive coverage mandate affirmatively compels the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law and avoid the sanctions that would be imposed for their noncompliance," wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush. He said that if the company doesn't comply with the mandate, it is subject to government fines and lawsuits.
Walton acknowledged that the government has broad, compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring that women have equal access to health care, but he said the question "is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests," underlying "to the plaintiffs" in the text. Nothing in Walton's order applied to anyone other than Tyndale.
Walton said that the government hasn't offered any proof that mandatory insurance for the specific types of contraceptives that Tyndale objects to furthers the government's compelling interests.
Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers "should be free to do business according to the book that they publish."
He added: "The Obama administration is not entitled to disregard religious freedom."
The Health and Human Service Department declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
Religious freedom does not trump the law.  Doubt it?  Ask a Mormon. Â
In 1862 the U.S. Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act - But we didn't enforce that one.
Â
Then they passed the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act
Â
"...the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that neutral laws that happen to impinge on some religious practices are constitutional."
For the love of PETE didn't we see enough of this "science knowledge" from Ryan who somehow knows women's bodies reject pregnancies from rape? Â Now this company can decide if contraceptives are "abortions"? Â This argument is why women did not vote for Mitt or Paul...if insurance is covering contraception then it should cover ALL contraception. Â Many women cannot take the pill...for them the IUD may be a much safer choice. Â And what objection is there to the Plan B pill? Â Oh, it Might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting....well golly gee...the Pill Might or might Not prevent an unwanted pregnancy, too. Â It Might cause a blood clot or stroke too...but hey, what's That risk compared to maybe preventing a pregnancy...
IMO,Religious freedom does not mean the ability to impose your religious beliefs on people who work for your company.That being said,I'm fortunate to work for Christians who have absolutely no interest in dictating to the female employees what kind of services the insurance pays or doesn't pay for.I don't understand why any woman in her right mind who supports reproductive choices would wan't to work for a company that has such repressive policies.
More Obama BS. The company that employs you shouldn't be forced to buy your condoms any more than they be forced to buy your ammunition if you like to go shooting on weekends. What you do for funzies in your spare time should not be any one else's concern (smoking weed for example) or responsibility to pay for. Perhaps those with the problem should seek a higher class of tavern regular with the whereabouts to purchase a condom prior to copulation. Â
 @last boyscout  This isn't about condoms or things you can buy over the counter in drug stores. It's not about recreation and it's not about getting high. This is about women's health care, and medical decisions that she and her doctor make which should be covered by her insurance. And your ridiculous perspective is why informed women do not vote Republican.
 @badcat Pardon me, but it's BS to suggest that this entire argument is about ANYTHING other than contraception and abortion. The massive and never ending media coverage by the liberal sycophants in the media is proof. To lump birth control into the same category as 'health care' is just the typical strategy of the liberal ideology. You are apparently so predisposed to the liberal thought process, that it seems logical to you to mate condoms with cough drops.Â
 @last boyscout Because of my self-respect I do not want to have any more children. Oh but then you are thinking that "well of course not because you shouldn't be hussying around".  Well I hate to break it to you, I have been married for the last 10 years (to the same man, even... *gasp).   And because I respect my body, soul and mind that is a choice that should be left up to me, not some old white, conservative man that want to force their religious dogma on me.Â
Â
OH, BTW... I have never been on any state assistance and always have had a job, some not as good as others, but always employed (even while birthin' babies). Â
 @last boyscout Then I suppose that the women in your life paid cash for the use of the hospital when they gave birth? Sure hope they didn't use insurance and "ask other to pay their way". We didn't make them pregnant, so why should we pay for the children to be born? They could have done that at home, but if they choose to use a doctor and hospital, that's all on them. Of course based on your comments, I'm guessing you sent them out into a field to deal with their "female problems" au naturale.
 @dandalion Because it's a benefit and added at some point as an added feature or bonus, doesn't make it any more the responsibility of me or any other taxpayer to pay for what [you] receive. It's this kind of entitlement thinking that liberals are famous for. Don't bother feeling sorry for any women in my life, they would be embarrassed by your lack of self respect. They take care of themselves, and would not consider asking others to pay their way.Â
 @last boyscout  @badcat It gets lumped into healthcare when I have to go a doctor, pay for the visit and exam and then take the written prescription to a pharmacist to get it and repeat this every six months to a year... then it is a healthcare issue as I cannot go to Rite-Aid and pick out the pill I want or insert my own implant or give myself my own depo-shot... so yes it is a healthcare issue and if you think its not I feel sorry for any women in your life.
 @badcat  @last boyscout So you think the government has the right to force a religious-based company to violate its beliefs?  Can you say violation of the First Amendment?
Ah, the party of "less" government control of private citizens and their personal affairs -- don't want to regulate the financial sector or set standards for pollution, but they're more than happy to tell you who you can marry and what sort of birth control you can use. Politicians, lawyers, and in this case publishers, are not doctors and should not be making ANY health care decisions for women. Most fertilized eggs never implant and get flushed out naturally. As George Carlin said, "according to these people, any woman who's had more than 2 periods is a serial killer."
'Walton acknowledged that the government has broad, compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring that women have equal access to health care, but he said the question "is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests...."'
Â
Something tells me that a Judge Regina Walton might have seen this differently.
Curious where this will go. Federal and state laws are intended to give all a common ground from which to do business and live ones life. If a religious group does not agree with those laws they should find a country more aligned to their beliefs.
Hate to say it but "The Obama administration is not entitled to disregard religious freedom."
I have to agree with.
It is interesting to me, on how people are so hell bent in running other lives that they think this is wrong..I say leave it up to an individual. Were not China....YET..
Sorry, but there's no such thing as a "Christian company". The owners may claim to be Christians, but no Christian in his or her right mind would prohibit the right of any other person to follow the dictates of their own heart.
Â
And I always make it a point never to do business with a company that advertises itself to be "Christian", because more often than not, they are less honest than those who do not advertise as such.
Â
Christ said, "Ye will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:16) And if a business is truly honest with its employees and customers, word will spread much faster than any advertising.
 @Mikey "no Christian in his or her right mind would prohibit the right of any other person to follow the dictates of their own heart."
This isn't arguing women's rights. This is arguing who should pay for the women's rights. If you do something that's against my religion, that's too bad. Do something against my religion with my money, unacceptable.
 @The_AnnaCannard True, but by your company not providing such benefits you are penalizing them for not living according to your religion, and that's not right, either.
Â
So if you're a Jehovah's Witness, would you deny employees healthcare that allowed blood transfusions?
Â
Or if you are a believer in faith healing, you just tell your employees that they just have to have faith they have healthcare?
 @Mikey Sorry, Mikey, but you are wrong on this.  If a Christian has started a company and wants to run it according to Biblical principals, the government should NOT be able to say you have to provide coverage for something that would violate the standards by which the company is run.  It would be a violation of the First Amendment.  Oh, but that's okay because its a Christian company.  Right?  Christians should not have the right to run the company the way they want.
 @theprodigal So you're saying that a company has the right to force its employees to attend prayer meetings even if they are not believers in such things. Or to have daily Bible readings, etc.
Â
Being a Christian does not give a person the right to force their beliefs onto another or to penalize them for believing differently. Christ healed sinners, regardless of their beliefs or station in life. He withheld nothing from them, did not mock them or judge them. He simply told them to go and sin no more.
Â
Who are we to do less?