Judge bars Obamacare contraceptive requirement for a Christian-owned business

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Judge bars Obamacare contraceptive requirement for a Christian-owned business
Christian Science Monitor
Warren Richey 6 hours ago

A federal judge in Oklahoma issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking the Obama administration from enforcing its contraceptive mandate against the craft chain store Hobby Lobby.

The action by US District Judge Joe Heaton came after the full Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that forcing Hobby Lobby and its Christian owners to pay for certain kinds of contraceptive methods would substantially burden their religious rights.

The appeals court overturned an earlier ruling by Judge Heaton denying an injunction. The appeals court then sent the issue back to the judge.

Judge Heaton reviewed pleadings and heard oral argument via a telephone conference on Friday before issuing a two-page order.

“The court concludes plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to warrant the issuance of a temporary restraining order in the circumstances existing here,” the judge wrote.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-bars-obamacare-contraceptive-requirement-christian-owned-business-235916641.html

---

[center]

Judge Joe L. Heaton[/center]
Wiki:

Joe L. Heaton (born 1951) is a United States federal judge.

Born in Alva, Oklahoma, Heaton received a B.A. from Northwestern Oklahoma State University in 1973 and a J.D. from the University of Oklahoma College of Law in 1976. He was a Legislative assistant, Sen. Dewey F. Bartlett, U.S. Senate from 1976 to 1977. He was in private practice in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1977-1992 from 1993 to 1996. He was an Adjunct instructor, University of Central Oklahoma from 1980 to 1981 and from 1992 to 1993. He was a State representative, Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1984 to 1992. He was a Special assistant U.S. attorney & U.S. attorney of U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma from 1992 to 1993. He was a First assistant U.S. attorney of U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma from 1996 to 2001.

On September 4, 2001, Heaton was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma vacated by Ralph G. Thompson. Heaton was confirmed by the United States Senate on December 6, 2001, and received his commission on December 10, 2001.

In November of 2012, Heaton ruled against Hobby Lobby in its bid not to be forced to provide emergency contraception to its employees.

Sources[edit]

[supernova]

1. I can't believe a higher court

isn't going to overturn that.

[cstanleytech]

37. I suspect the government is eventually going to have to reword some of the law though

and make it so the company is free to choose whatever provider it wants but all health providers must provide access to the varies forms of birth control that way no company can pull this stuff in the future by trying to tell the providers they want no birth control covered.

[DFW]

2. When will these people FINALLY realize

The employers don't need to be protected. The employees DO.

[golfguru]

4. Sadly most jobs I had were always

from the bloody employers. None of the employees ever gave me a job!
So I must stay in gratitude to the employers for giving me jobs
and the means to make a decent living. Those employee blokes did every
thing possible to show me in a negative light. I guess they did not like a
foreigner given recognition by the employers.

[DFW]

8. Sorry to hear that, but that wasn't what I was talking about

Of course the employer is the one paying the bills, and not all employees will be princes to works next to. However, using religious malarkey to get out of covering employees from contraception mandated by law is not a fundamental part of the decision as to whether to open a business or not.

That having been said, to your point, my daughters are both dual nationals, and so can always be considered as "foreigners" in their respective jobs. Their co-workers respect them (or give them grief, depending) not due to their "funny accents," but for their work and their efforts to get along. My own little outfit has employees from at least six different countries, including at least two division heads (and we're based out of Texas), so just being foreign isn't an automatic black mark in the States.

[golfguru]

15. Actually...

I am mostly in agreement with you. In my jobs, I must have
been respected enough to receive great promotions and raises.
But there were those few Americans who resented a person with
accent and a shade darker skin color getting ahead of them,
but I wrote it off to natural phenomena.

As for restricting employers, I can only go along with restrictions
on what could be harmful and dangerous to employees. Paying for
their contraceptives should be a choice of the employer. It should
be based on a business decision. Successful businesses always go
out of their way to attract and keep good workers with a bevy of
fringe benefits. If the business thinks contraceptives will attract
good workers, you don't need a law for that to happen. My employer
even paid for my evening college courses. Religion based employers
should be free to practice their religious beliefs unless again it is
harmful to the safety of employees at the job.

[Doremus]

17. .

So you're generally down on employees and up on employers, am I reading you right?

Could I accurately extrapolate that you're not a fan of unions and are all in favor of right to work laws and the rights of corporations to hire and fire at will?

I mean, you were 'respected enough to receive great promotions and raises', right? All employees should work hard so they can be similarly rewarded, right? And workers who *don't* receive great promotions and raises are all slackers and lazy bums, right?

Please enlighten us.

[golfguru]

47. ...

I am up on good workers, down on bad workers.
I am up on smart employers, down on stupid employers.

Smart employers understand that employees must be properly
compensated for great job. Dumb employers try to be stingy with
all employees, good and bad.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. What if their religious beliefs preclude dark skinned people with accents?

[golfguru]

39. That is not a place where you would want to work anyways

and I can bet you my bottom dollar, that business will never amount
to anything. A smart business nurtures ALL good workers.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. Where are you from? There's no prejudice where you come from?

and what would an American (foriegner)worker face in your country?

You sound ungrateful to me...

[golfguru]

40. U S of A is the only country in the world where...

a foreign born person like me could achieve the successful I was able to
achieve. This is THE greatest country in the world, bar none!

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. then quit your bitchin' about the American employees who created this country that made you a succes

WE made this country....not your employers!

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. It's supposed to be WE the people (the employed) not we YOUR employers...

without us they would be like every other employer in every other country and YOU wouldn have the opportunity to achieve great success in "THE greatest country in the world" Show a little gratitude where it is due thank you!

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. "Employees" buy the goods that create the jobs you've had...

without those employees buying stuff....YOU wouldn't have a job here and would have to go home.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. there is no I in Team...

[golfguru]

42. Employees with money to buy + capital formation to start & grow a business =

formula for a prosperous country. One can not be any good without the other.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. No Sorry YOU are wrong about this country if THAT is what you think!

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. What makes this country great....

the PEOPLE not the Capitalism...sorry to break your Libertarian heart. We are a Democratic Republic...not the Capitalist States of America!

[freshwest]

35. Thanks, that's the whole point, isn't it? The law is about the women needing equal treatment.

Wonder if the 14th is going to be upheld by the USSC under its Equal Protection Clause for female employees.

After their VRA ruling, not quite sure, that was a hard one. I agree the VRA had one major flaw. It was not applicable to all fifty states and voter disenfranchisement occurs outside the districts it covered.

Hoping the John Lewis Voting Rights Act will be voted on soon in the HoR. If it doesn't pass, the names of those who voted against it will be on record. Ready to be used against them in 2014.

But after this court overturned DOMA by citing Equal Protection under the 14th, it just might just overrule this.

Since the USSC found Obamacare to be Constitutional, they may regard this as covered. I don't remember how deeply they went into any other issue but funding.

The ACA as written and intended, is a great equalizer for women.

Hope it's not too hot over in Europe. Still decent temperatures in the PNW.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

3. Appeal!

[Freddie]

5. It's only "certain kinds of contraception"

That they mistakenly think causes a fertilized egg to fail to implant, the morning-after pill and IUDs. Presumably they will pay for the regular Pill and other BC.

[Deep13]

26. Isn't that what the "regular pill" does? nt

[Freddie]

32. The Pill prevents ovulation

No egg to fertilize. Presumably the Hobby Lobby folks actually accept the science on this one. Plan B works the same way but in earlier studies it was speculated that it might also work by causing a fertilized egg to fail to implant. I think a non-hormonal IUD might do this but the new hormonal IUD (Mirena) works like the Pill by suppressing ovulation, but because of the location a much smaller dose of hormone is needed. My daughter has Mirena and loves it, it's virtually 100% effective and totally brain-free with the added bonus of extremely light or no periods.

[Deep13]

34. I see, thanks. nt

[DallasNE]

6. The 10th Circuit Just Told

The District Court what outcome is expected on July 19th. Of course it will uphold Hobby Lobby. This is a railroad job all of the way. What they don't seem to realize is that they have just opened the door to Sharia Law by some Muslim owner of a business.

It will be interesting to see how they twist the wording of the law to accommodate Hobby Lobby. I can't boycott Hobby Lobby because I already never shop there. Let's see how the Justice Department reacts. Will they appeal to the Supreme Court for a Stay? I'm sure Hobby Lobby already Court shopped to head something like this off. This ruling takes effect on Monday and I presume the Courts are closed until then.

[RiverNoord]

21. Ok - I despise the effects of the so-called 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act'

of 1993, but it's the law, at least as applied to the federal government and that's one thing that judge-bashing and crying "oh no, Muslim Sharia law" won't have any effect on. In fact, Muslims, Buddhist, Sikh, Christians, and especially Native Americans using peyote in their religious ceremonies already have full protection under the law.

The law basically states that any federal laws can be ignored by a 'person' holding a sincerely held religious belief if the law represents a substantial burden on the free exercise of that belief and the government fails to demonstrate a 'compelling interest' in the law sufficient to justify the burden.

It's a crappily written law, and part of it has been stricken as unconstitutional. Not the part that applies the law to the federal government, though, since it was the Congress that passed it, almost unanimously, and the President - Clinton, at the time - signed it.

The only questions are who is a 'person', what is a sincerely held religious belief, what's the burden, and how compelling is the government interest. Nothing else matters.

There's a split regarding whether a for-profit corporation is a 'person' for the purposes of the law - the 10th Circuit has went with 'yes.' It sucks, but regarding federal law on the subject, it seems to be implied.

Once that's decided, the rest is usually straightforward - a Quaker can't refuse to pay income tax - it's a compelling Federal interest, but a New Mexico branch of a Brazilian church cannot be prohibited from using a Schedule I level psychoactive substance in its tea ceremony - not compelling enough an interest (that was a unanimous Supreme Court ruling).

So - it would be really helpful if people would actually read court opinions and examine the laws before bashing a decision that is actually a close one under US law. I don't like it one bit, but the only recourse is to change the law - judges, whoever appoints them, have to follow it.

[DallasNE]

23. Way To Get All Huffy

Prior to writing my post I read a summary on ThinkProgress that said the following.

The Supreme Court established more than three decades ago that a company may not “impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” As the Court explained in United States v. Lee, “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” So there should be little doubt that the employer in this case, a national chain of crafting retailers, must comply with a law requiring them to include birth control coverage in their health plans. Religious objections cannot be imposed upon an employer’s workers.
...
The majority opinion does not simply conclude that a for profit corporation may assert a religious objection to a law — itself a questionable proposition — it even opens the door to “a large publicly traded corporation tr[ying] to assert religious rights” (although the court does admit that it would be difficult for Walmart to prove that its alleged religious beliefs are sincere). It defines an important limit on religious liberty cases, the requirement that the plaintiff show that a law “substantially burdens” their exercise of religion, so narrowly as to render this limit a nullity in many cases. And it even includes some language suggesting that religious employers could successfully object to laws ensuring “gender equality.”

It was this last comment on "gender equality" that reminded me of elements of Sharia Law that could be invoked. Of course gays could well be discriminated against by a religious employer by denying them spousal benefits and possibly allowing them to fire openly gay employees.

Granted, the Establishment Clause is there to prevent government at any level from establishing an official religion. But how is it any better to be under the boot heel of a corporation with control over your livelihood than from a government entity? This ruling, if upheld, really opens up a can of worms and a lot of religious zealots are chomping at the bit to run with this ball. And just because someone sees an issue with a different perspective is no reason to attack with degrading language.

[bl968]

7. Equal Protection

The courts need to establish where specifically do employers rights end, the rights of their employees begin. I think it should be considered discrimination when the rights of the employers, overrides the equally protected under law rights of the employee.

[Sunlei]

9. "emergency contraception" . So Hobby Lobby should pay the Federal Gov. to cover the extra burdon

on unprevented pregnancies. And to cover the extra costs incured by their insured employees. Drug company makes a GIANT profit off the morning after pills. About 5 cents worth of hormone in a $50.00? package.

[Conium]

10. This gives Christians a bad name.

Hobby Lobby has lost my business. I will not darken their door again.

What is next? Tax exemptions for Christian-owned companies?

[mountain grammy]

11. A FEDERAL judge ruling against the first amendment..

wow, who da thunk? Hobby Lobby has had not a dime from me for years because of its support for what, in my opinion, are right wing hate groups.
These corporate religious fanatics can support whoever they want, but they won't do it with my money.

[They_Live]

12. They already lost my business

when they filed this lawsuit last year. Apparently Invisible Sky Friend trumps pragmatism when it comes to seeking private advice from your doctor. Your employer's spiritual belief system trumps your own individual practical health care methods.

Ironically Hobby Lobby buys almost all of its wares from China, where they actually mandate abortion.

[lastlib]

13. Won't these fundy dicks EVER just go away??!?

[SoapBox]

14. Activist Judge!!!

Isn't this what the PukeBaggers are always bitch'n about???

[EC]

16. But the law doesn't make them pay for contraceptives.

Nor does it make them pay for the insurance coverage, it was re-written to allow the insurance company to pay for that part of the premium. So Hobby Lobby is left out of the mix completely. This judge didn't do his job, he never looked at the law. Must be a conservative, they never do their research and rule on hear-say.


On edit: There is something shady about this place to begin with. Their business model is to inflate the cost they say things are worth and then to discount from there...I'm sure there is some sort of tax gimmick in that. Their store here is always empty as is their parking lot...but they are still in business. Everyone I know goes to Michael's not Hobby Lobby...

[Conium]

18. Bush-appointed judicial activists need some review.

Justice Scalia said the Obamacare mandate is 'as a tax' so is their argument they should not be taxed because they are a church? Churches should pay taxes too. The only ones "untaxed" by the U.S. Constitution are Indians, but let me tell you, American Indians do pay taxes. Churches need their part as well.

Bush had binders full of frat buddies.

[procopia]

20. If Hobby Lobby, as a corporation, is a separate legal entity from its owners

how can a corporation have first amendment rights?

[RiverNoord]

22. That's probably the only sensible comment that's been made in this thread...

The thing is that the case isn't First Amendment one, although a few of the judges on the 10th Circuit (not enough to make it part of the decision) would like to have made it one. It's all and only about a 1993 law called the "Restoration of Religious Freedom Act." It's called RFRA for short, and if anyone actually cares about making sense of the case instead of ranting about judges, first look up RFRA, then read the 10th Circuit's opinion on the case.

The bottom line is that RFRA is a ridiculous law that purports to exempt any 'person' (which, in this case, in response to your post, was determined to apply to a for-profit corporation - there's a 'Circuit Split' on the issue...) who has any 'sincerely held' religious belief to ignore any federal law that substantially burdens the free exercise of the person's religion. Then the government has to demonstrate that it has a 'compelling interest' that justifies the burden. It's a mess and the part that applies to the states has been stricken as unconstitutional. However, it was passed by an almost unanimous Congress and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law.

Yeah, that's a valid US law - if there's ranting to be done, at least let's rant about the right thing. Even 'liberal' judges haven't really been able to work around it - the law is the law, and a judge's job is to see that it is applied.

[They_Live]

25. Excellent point

[NYC Liberal]

29. That's what I've said.

They want it both ways. They want to have a corporation so they aren't personally liable for what the company does, but they want their individual rights to apply to it.

[RiverNoord]

38. The conundrum is that individual free speech rights

aren't worth anything if you are barred from joining together with others in groups - the First Amendment guarantee to the right to peaceably assemble.

What we now consider the standard for-profit corporation, formed under the laws of a particular state for the explicit purpose of making money and granted specific qualities that people don't have, such as perpetual existence and strictly limited liability of the owners, is very unlikely to have anything to do with the First Amendment right to freely assemble for any sort of political purpose. That's common sense - excepting that, once the corporation is formed and doing business, the owners (shareholders) now likely have certain shared political perspectives, such as 'anything that helps the corporation make more money is good' and 'anything that makes it more difficult for the corporation to make money is bad.'

Just because those opinions are all about money doesn't mean they're not quite legitimately political - most of politics has always been about money in one way or another, when you get down to it.

Reality dictates that, unless for-profit corporations are explicitly, Constitutionally barred from spending money in order to influence political campaigns, the combination of the free speech rights of the individual combined with the right of the people to peaceably assemble guarantees that corporations and their shareholders will always get it 'both ways.' They will get to have their cake and eat it too. And they will always have massively more resources to dedicate to influencing politics, resources that individuals and non-corporate advocacy groups (the actual point of the right to peaceably assemble) will never be able to compete with.

[blueniteflower]

24. Christian Scientists

Would love to see a company own by Christian Scientists who refuse to provide any health care since they believe in the power of prayer and often refuse medical intervention anyway.

[kestrel91316]

27. Hobby Lobby isn't paying for that contraception - the insurance company is.

One would think that Hobby Lobby wouldn't have standing to even fight this case.

[Freddie]

33. Their real issue (and also the Catholic's issue)

Is the fact that by being employed by them a woman gets *access* to "free" contraception whether the employer pays for it or not. A little petty and controlling, aren't we?

[XemaSab]

36. If I work for a business owned by crazy snake handlers

and I get bit by a snake, can they refuse to provide coverage for that?

[MH1]

46. From the bio, it looks like Heaton hasn't set foot outside Oklahoma.

Yikes, not the kind of guy we need for a judge, anywhere. People need to see a little bit of the world outside of their backyards to understand why not everyone has the same perspective on life.