The U.S. Supreme Court in 2014's Hobby Lobby decision ruled that the Obama administration could not demand that certain companies pay for abortion pills as part of their health insurance for employees.
Still pending is the final resolution of a similar case that probably will provide that charitable groups don't either.
Now there's a ruling from a federal judge that a family is exempt from the requirement because of the faith of its members. And there's yet another at the same time, a preliminary ruling from a second judge who agrees a man and his company cannot be forced to take part in the Obama administration's pro-abortion agenda mandate immediately.
The first result comes from U.S. District Judge Jean C. Hamilton who ruled in the case involving Missouri state Sen. Paul Wieland and his wife, Theresa.
TRENDING: Jihad against Christians is due to … climate change?
The case was pursued by the Thomas More Law Society.
In ruling that the family is exempt, the judge wrote, "The ultimate impact is that plaintiffs must either maintain a health insurance plan that includes contraceptive coverage, in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, or they can forgo healthcare altogether, which will result in the imposition of significant penalties (not to mention the potentially crippling costs of uninsured health care)."
Tom Brejcha, the organization's chief counsel, explained the potentially sweeping impact of this decision.
"In 2014's Hobby Lobby decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that privately owned businesses whose owners assert conscientious objections based on sincerely held religious beliefs may not be coerced to comply with the Obamacare mandate. For the first time that we're aware of, this decision now vests that same right of religious liberty in individuals and families across America," he said.
The result is that unless and until there's an appeal, the federal government cannot constitutionally compel the family to pay for group health insurance for their family that includes "required coverage for medical services that they deem religiously objectionable."
The organization explained the judge "granted Paul Wieland and his family permanent protection from Obamacare's mandate that individuals, as well as businesses and other non-church entities, must purchase health insurance coverage for contraception, including pharmaceutical 'abortion pills' and sterilization."
"The court upheld the family's right to assert religious objections as a basis for exemption from the mandate as it imposes a substantial burden on the Weilands' exercise of their religious faith, contrary to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act … the same federal statute successfully invoked by the for-profit corporation, Hobby Lobby, and later invoked with partial success (so far) by non-profit religious groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor," the organization reported.
St. Louis attorney Tim Belz, Thomas More Society special counsel, said, "The sad irony here is that this family had to take the Obama administration to court to preserve their constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom when, as Judge Hamilton agreed, all the government needs to do is allow people to check a box to opt out of contraceptive coverage."
The judge noted that as lifelong Roman Catholics, family members opposed the abortifacient payment demand.
"They assert that the mandate forces them to either violate their religious opposition to contraceptives by maintaining health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage, or forgo health insurance altogether 'under the pain of penalties,'" the judge said.
The Obama administration had argued that the Catholic family didn't have to change its behavior – it just had to pay for the insurance. The argument was that it was the insurance company that was changing, by adding the abortifacient coverage.
"This court disagrees that the mandate does not cause plaintiffs to modify their behavior at all. The mandate, in its current form, requires plaintiffs to now maintain … a health insurance plan that includes contraceptive coverage. The only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit; in the assessment of thousands of dollars per year in fines … and in leaving their daughters without health insurance," the judge said.
The judge said while she assumed the government had a compelling interest in making sure insurance benefits are available, the mandate certainly was far from the least restrictive way to do that.
The Obama administration argued that insurance markets couldn't function if insurers had to tailor each health plan to individuals, but the judge said Obamacare offerings are not like Medicaid.
"Here, the government does not provide the insurance at issue, and plaintiffs are not requesting the court to force their insurer to do anything. Ultimately, in the wake of the requested injunction, it would be left to the discretion of the third-party insurance provider to determine whether or not to offer contraceptive-free plans," she wrote.
"Plaintiffs propose that the government could allow a system like that in place in Missouri before the mandate, where individuals could simply check a box to opt out of contraceptive coverage."
The judge, issuing a summary judgment for the family's benefit, said, "The court agrees that this less restrictive alternative would equally further the government's interest."
In the second case, a Florida judge issued a preliminary injunction in a similar fight.
Officials with the Great Lakes Justice Center said their unopposed motion to stop the Obama mandate was brought on behalf of Tom Beckwith, owner and CEO of Beckwith Electric.
"Tom Beckwith's ancestors sought refuge in America in 1626 to escape religious persecution. So when the Obama administration tried to force Tom Beckwith to comply with a mandate requiring him to supply abortion-causing drugs against his religious beliefs as part of his company's employee benefits plan – Tom knew what was at stake," the organization reported.
The preliminary order, which was a response to a complaint alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment and other parts of the Constitution, protects Beckwith's freedom for right now, his legal team said.
Erin Mersino, senior counsel for the center, said, "This is a wonderful victory for religious freedom. Our client faced crippling fines that would have bankrupted his company and thrown 126 employees into the unemployment line merely because he would not violate his sincerely held religious beliefs. The HHS mandate is an unprecedented attack on Tom's religious freedom and we trust the court will ultimately enter a final order that protects his First Amendment rights. All employers should be reviewing the effect of the HHS mandate on their businesses to determine if they need to pursue similar legal protection to make sure their religious beliefs are not compromised."
U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven said that all proceedings in the case will remain on hold until a month after the final resolution of the consolidated appeals in EWTN v. Burwell, another case making a related challenge.
WND reported last winter when the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor's legal challenge to the mandate that non-church religious groups pay for contraceptives for their employees.
The court shortly later told both sides to see if a compromise could be worked out.
The Little Sisters are a 175-year-old religious order who have vowed to care for the elderly poor. The Little Sisters have asked the Supreme Court for protection from a government mandate that already exempts one in three Americans, large corporations like Chevron, Exxon, and Pepsi and the U.S. military.
"The high court must decide whether the government can force the Little Sisters of the Poor to comply with this mandate and provide services that violate their faith even though these services can easily be obtained through the government's own exchanges," said a statement from the Becket Fund, which is representing the Little Sisters.
Little Sisters argue that the Obamacare mandate violates their "free exercise" rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Supreme Court set a precedent when it earlier ruled that Hobby Lobby could not be forced to fund abortion pills, contraceptives and other services that violated its managers' faith.
Â