Obama asks high court to review contraception mandate ruling

WASHINGTON Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:06pm EDT

Related Topics

Photo

Ebola epidemic

Quarantines and isolation units imposed to stop the spread of the worst Ebola outbreak in history.  Slideshow 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to review the legality of a politically volatile provision of the 2010 federal healthcare law requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.

The administration wants the high court to reverse a June decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver favoring arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. That decision said for-profit companies can sometimes assert religious rights if they do not wish to comply with a federal regulation.

Separately, a Christian legal group called the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a petition on Thursday seeking review of a different appeals court ruling in which the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled against the employer.

The group filed on behalf of a Mennonite-owned company in Pennsylvania, Conestoga Wood Specialties.

The fact that federal appeals courts are split on the issue and parties on both sides want the Supreme Court to weigh in would indicate the court is likely to decide to take up the issue. A ruling would be expected in the court's new term, which starts in October and ends in June 2014.

The legal question about the so-called "contraception mandate" was not before the court when it upheld the healthcare law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in a June 2012 ruling.

In the government's petition in the Hobby Lobby case, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - which is the law cited by the company - is designed to protect individuals and religious institutions.

He said it is not intended to be "a sword used to deny employees of for-profit commercial enterprises the benefits and protections of generally applicable laws."

Lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom said in the second petition that their clients, the Hahn family, "object as a matter of conscience to facilitating certain contraceptives that they believe can destroy human life."

The administration's petition is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354. The other case, which does not yet have a number, is Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Eric Walsh)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
ShakeySteve wrote:
The purpose of incorporation is to legally separate the owners from the business. This has a bunch of benefits from taxes to liability because the owner is NOT the business. It protects the owners in many ways. But at the same time the rights of the owner do not extend to the corporation because it is a separate entity. If these people want their business to be an extension of themselves and have their rights they should reform their businesses as proprietorships or partnerships and assume the personal liability that goes along with exercising one’s right. Or do these people lack the courage of their convictions.

Sep 19, 2013 8:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
daniwitz13 wrote:
The comment by Shakey Steve, has some perspective, however, the issue is not resolved when one company, because of how it is designed and type of License can avoid the issue. How it is composed should NOT be the governing factor. It seems a deeper insight and Perspective must be attained. Pity.

Sep 20, 2013 5:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
euro-yank wrote:
I’m guessing that these company CEOs don’t mind Viagra or penile implants being paid for by their insurance policies.

Sep 22, 2013 1:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus