Catholic dioceses of Pittsburgh, Erie win injunction against Affordable Care Act
November 21, 2013 5:46 PM
A federal judge today granted a preliminary injunction to organizations associated with the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Diocese of Erie against Affordable Care Act requirements that their insurers cover contraception and similar services.
The decision is almost certain to be appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but it marks an important early win for the church groups in their case against federal officials and agencies.
The Affordable Care Act requires that most employers provide coverage for their employees starting Jan. 1 that includes contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. Churches are exempt, but church-related nonprofit organizations like Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Pittsburgh are not.
The nonprofit agencies have to file objections to the coverage with their insurance administrators. The administrators then have to provide the coverage to the employees anyway, at no charge to the organizations.
Failure to provide the coverage can result in fines that the diocesan organizations claim would total millions of dollars a year.
U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab wrote in his 65-page opinion that the "sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and the dignity of all persons are central tenets of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"This belief necessarily prohibits providing, subsidizing, initiating, or facilitating insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization services, contraceptives, and related educational and counseling services," he wrote.
The contraception mandate "would be unequally applied to Plaintiffs and would result in some schools, organizations, etc., being exempt from the mandate, while other organizations would not," the judge wrote. "The result would cause a division between the Dioceses and their nonprofit, religious affiliated/related spiritual/charitable/educational organizations which fulfill portions of Dioceses’ mission."
The provision of the coverage could result in "decreased donations, loss of employees to other employers, loss of services" and fines that could force the closure of community assets.
“I was relieved, obviously, because the issue that we had been dealing with in this lawsuit is the protection of religious freedom,” said Bishop David Zubik, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
“I hope that if people read this decision they see that it is not a decision about contraceptives or sterilizations or abortifacients. … What the judge essentially said in his decision was that faith without works is dead.”
A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, which is handling the defense for the involved federal agencies and officials, declined comment.
“I think that obviously the court got it wrong,” said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief opposing the dioceses position. “From that perspective, I believe that on appeal, we hope that the 3rd Circuit [Court of Appeals] … would reverse the decision.”
The judge granted the injunction because, he wrote, the dioceses and related organizations showed that they would be harmed by the mandate, that the government wouldn't be harmed by an injunction and that the religious organizations would be likely to prevail, ultimately, in the litigation. To win the case, the religious organizations have to show that their exercise of their beliefs will be "substantially burdened" by the act.
The judge "is constrained to understand why religious employers such as Catholic Charities and Prince of Peace Center – which were borne from the same religious faith, and premised upon the same religious tenets and principles, and operate as extensions and embodiments of the Church, but are not subsidiaries of a parent corporation – would not be treated the same as the Church itself with respect to the free exercise of that religion," he wrote.
Rich Lord: rlord@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1542. Twitter: @richelord. First Published November 21, 2013 4:30 PM
The decision is almost certain to be appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but it marks an important early win for the church groups in their case against federal officials and agencies.
The Affordable Care Act requires that most employers provide coverage for their employees starting Jan. 1 that includes contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. Churches are exempt, but church-related nonprofit organizations like Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Pittsburgh are not.
The nonprofit agencies have to file objections to the coverage with their insurance administrators. The administrators then have to provide the coverage to the employees anyway, at no charge to the organizations.
Failure to provide the coverage can result in fines that the diocesan organizations claim would total millions of dollars a year.
U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab wrote in his 65-page opinion that the "sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and the dignity of all persons are central tenets of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"This belief necessarily prohibits providing, subsidizing, initiating, or facilitating insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization services, contraceptives, and related educational and counseling services," he wrote.
The contraception mandate "would be unequally applied to Plaintiffs and would result in some schools, organizations, etc., being exempt from the mandate, while other organizations would not," the judge wrote. "The result would cause a division between the Dioceses and their nonprofit, religious affiliated/related spiritual/charitable/educational organizations which fulfill portions of Dioceses’ mission."
The provision of the coverage could result in "decreased donations, loss of employees to other employers, loss of services" and fines that could force the closure of community assets.
“I was relieved, obviously, because the issue that we had been dealing with in this lawsuit is the protection of religious freedom,” said Bishop David Zubik, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
“I hope that if people read this decision they see that it is not a decision about contraceptives or sterilizations or abortifacients. … What the judge essentially said in his decision was that faith without works is dead.”
A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, which is handling the defense for the involved federal agencies and officials, declined comment.
“I think that obviously the court got it wrong,” said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief opposing the dioceses position. “From that perspective, I believe that on appeal, we hope that the 3rd Circuit [Court of Appeals] … would reverse the decision.”
The judge granted the injunction because, he wrote, the dioceses and related organizations showed that they would be harmed by the mandate, that the government wouldn't be harmed by an injunction and that the religious organizations would be likely to prevail, ultimately, in the litigation. To win the case, the religious organizations have to show that their exercise of their beliefs will be "substantially burdened" by the act.
The judge "is constrained to understand why religious employers such as Catholic Charities and Prince of Peace Center – which were borne from the same religious faith, and premised upon the same religious tenets and principles, and operate as extensions and embodiments of the Church, but are not subsidiaries of a parent corporation – would not be treated the same as the Church itself with respect to the free exercise of that religion," he wrote.
No comments:
Post a Comment