Court Ruling: Hobby Lobby Cannot Deny Contraceptive Coverage to its Employees

By Amal Bass, WLP Staff Attorney

On November 19, 2012, an Oklahoma federal court denied Hobby Lobby’s motion for a preliminary injunction, telling the business and its co-plaintiff (Mardel, another business owned by the same family trust) that they would be unlikely to succeed in their legal challenge to the contraceptive coverage rule under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  This rule makes contraception more affordable for women by requiring new or renewed insurance to cover the cost without co-pays or deductibles as of August 1, 2012.

Religious organizations, like houses of worships, are exempt from providing such coverage, and the Obama Administration has proposed an “accommodation” for other religious organizations under certain circumstances.  Just yesterday, November 27, 2012, a Pennsylvania federal court dismissed a lawsuit by the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, Catholic Charities, and Catholic Cemeteries Association as premature because, unlike Hobby Lobby, several exceptions to the contraceptive coverage rule apply to them at the present time either because they are religious organizations or have grandfathered plans.  Most v. Sebelius, No. 12-cv-00676, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167737 (W.D. Pa. 2012).  Hobby Lobby, as a private, for-profit business, is in a different situation; it does not fit within the accommodation or exemptions.

In its lawsuit, Hobby Lobby and Mardel claimed that requiring contraceptive coverage in the health plans they offer to their employees violates their rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).  In particular, Hobby Lobby protested coverage for contraceptive methods that it wrongly believed to be abortifacients, such as Emergency Contraception (EC), which does not cause abortions because it works by preventing the ovary from releasing an egg, not by disturbing a fertilized egg implanted in the uterus.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled against Hobby Lobby and Mardel, concluding that the companies were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because:

Hobby Lobby and Mardel, [being] secular, for- profit corporations, do not have free exercise rights. The [owners] do have such rights, but are unlikely to prevail as to their constitutional claims because the preventive care coverage regulations they challenge are neutral laws of general applicability which are rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective.

Plaintiffs also have failed to demonstrate a probability of success on their Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims. Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not ‘persons’ for purposes of the RFRA and the Greens have not established that compliance with the preventive care coverage regulations would ‘substantially burden’ their religious exercise[.]

Essentially, the court concluded that, for the purposes of free exercise of religion, corporations are not people and do not have such rights.  Their owners have religious freedom rights, but broadly applicable, neutral laws like the ACA do not infringe on these constitutional or statutory rights.  Legal challenges waged by secular, for-profit businesses against the contraceptive coverage rule in other lower federal courts, however, have resulted in mixed results.

It is important that our federal courts protect the contraceptive coverage rule from attacks like the one at the heart of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.  Business owners should not be able to impose their personal religious beliefs on their employees, who come from a wide range of backgrounds.  Depending on the method used, contraception can cost between $15 and $1,000 up front, and the contraceptive coverage rule ensures that fewer women will pay out-of-pocket for birth control, which is not only important for family planning but also to address other health concerns, such as polycystic ovarian syndrome.

To learn more about the Affordable Care Act and reproductive health care, see our report, Through the Lens of EQUALITY: Eliminating Sex Bias to Improve the Health of Pennsylvania’s Women.

Courts Come to Different Decisions on the ACA’s Provision Requiring Some Employers to Cover Contraception

Mary Pat Dwyer, WLP Law Intern

Two federal district court judges ruled recently on claims regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provision which requires that employers providing health insurance to their employees cover reproductive health services, including birth control, emergency contraception, and other procedures.

On Tuesday, July 17, Judge Warren Urbom of the District of Nebraska dismissed a suit brought by several states, Catholic groups, and individual plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the provision.  The groups argued that the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association gave them the right to deny their employees coverage for these essential services.  The states claimed that the groups and others like them would cease to provide insurance for their employees rather than comply with the law, which in turn would increase the number of Medicaid applicants and adversely affect state budgets.

Judge Urbom found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue their claim that the mandate violated the first amendment for two reasons.  First, the federal government has delayed enforcement of the provision until August 2013.  Because of this, the groups are not facing any imminent requirement to comply with the law, and thus cannot show the “direct and immediate harm” that plaintiffs must show in order to have the courts consider their claims. Second, the states claims that they would face increases in Medicaid costs were based purely on “layers of conjecture,” and had no factual grounding. Furthermore, Judge Urbom pointed out that the Department of Health and Human Services is currently considering revising the definition of religious employers under the ACA. Because of the potential for revision, none of the plaintiffs could show that they would ever be impacted by the provision.

On Friday, July 27, Judge John Kane of the District of Colorado reached a drastically different conclusion when he granted an injunction prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the provision against Hercules Industries Inc., a private corporation. Judge Kane found that for the Catholic plaintiffs, who serve as co-owners and board of directors of a company that manufactures HVAC equipment, the obligation to comply with the law threatened their right to exercise their religious beliefs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Katherine Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, expressed disappointment with Judge Kane’s decision, but also stated that she is “confident that as this case moves through the courts, the policy that most health insurance plans cover contraception will be upheld.” Sebelius also reaffirmed the administration’s position that “health decisions should be between women and their doctors, not their employers.”

Twenty-four similar lawsuits claiming that the requirement violates the First Amendment are still pending in courts across the country. These suits undermine the security of women’s health care, and it is crucial that the courts recognize the grave importance of comprehensive health care access. As WLP highlighted in Through the Lens of Equality: Eliminating Sex Bias to Improve the Health of Pennsylvania’s Women, women who face restricted access to contraceptive care suffer serious health risks as a result. Women who are unable to effectively and safely plan their pregnancies are more likely to experience pregnancy complications. For women who have preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, coronary artery disease, or arthritis, unintended pregnancies can be life threatening. Additionally, children born of unplanned pregnancies, face increased risks of premature birth, low birth, poor nutrition, and infant mortality.

Neither judge ruled on the constitutionality of the provision. However, as we have previously explained, the federal contraceptive coverage rule does not violate the First Amendment because it is a neutral law that does not target a particular faith and applies to everyone equally.  It is constitutional.

A Lawsuit in Federal Court Seeks to Lift the Obama Administration’s Emergency Contraception Decision

A federal district court in New York is considering “whether to force the federal government to lift the age restrictions on over-the-counter sale of emergency contraceptives.” This lawsuit, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, alleges that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has denied women of all ages access to over-the-counter emergency contraception and has failed to follow procedural, statutory, and regulatory mandates in violation of the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The plaintiffs originally filed this action in 2005, and re-opened the case in 2012, after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made the unprecedented decision to overrule the FDA’s judgment to lift the age restriction on over-the-counter access to emergency contraception (Plan B).

We have blogged before  about the age restriction on emergency contraception access and why it is unwise to have such a restriction. In a letter sent to President Obama and Secretary Sebelius, WLP noted that

when our country faces approximately 3.1 million unintended pregnancies each year, unrestricted access to safe and effective contraception is vital…[and] also…there is simply no evidence to suggest that making emergency over-the-counter contraception available encourages young women to begin having sex at a younger age, or engage in sex with more partners.

According to Politico, Judge Korman “seems to be losing his patience with what he sees as the government’s disregard of scientific evidence saying the drug should be available over the counter. ‘Understand — the FDA has made a scientific judgment here,’ Korman told the government’s lawyer.”

But even if Judge Korman does decide to overrule the age restriction on emergency contraception, the government has argued that Korman does not actually have the power to make such a decision. However, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) noted that Korman has already established a precedent for lowering the age limit on access to emergency contraception when he ordered the age restriction be lowered from 18 to 17 in 2009.

The current lawsuit seeks to remove a barrier to young women’s access to emergency contraception by making it available without a prescription, which takes time for women to procure and may cost money for the appointment.  In Through the Lens of Equality: Eliminating Sex Bias to Improve the Health of Pennsylvania’s Women, WLP discusses many of the barriers that impede women’s access to basic reproductive health care, including legal restrictions, high cost, misinformation, and violence and harassment against patients and providers.  These barriers have a deleterious effect on women’s health by, for example, increasing the likelihood of unintended pregnancies, which are correlated with a wide range of negative health outcomes for women and children.  Removing the age restriction on over-the-counter access to emergency contraception would improve the health and welfare of young women throughout the country.