Hobby Lobby birth control ruling doesn't apply to religious groups, feds say
A June 2014 ruling exempting faith-based corporations from having to comply with Obamacare birth control mandates does not apply to faith-based non-profits, White House attorneys argued last week.
Pro-life ministry Priests for Life asked the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to give them the same consideration as crafts chain Hobby Lobby, but the Obama administration is fighting the case.
The Supreme Court allowed Hobby Lobby to opt-out of providing the morning-after pill and IUDs because they are a "closely-held" company, which the IRS defines as being majority-owned by five or fewer people - and they demonstrated that the free contraceptives mandate violates their religious beliefs and is a burden.
A July decision in favour of Christian liberal arts school Wheaton College affirmed the Hobby Lobby ruling, and found that these exempted employers do not have to submit a form, EBSA-700, to have their insurers pay for the controversial contraceptives.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that it is offensive to their clients' religious beliefs, and a contradiction of the prior Supreme Court rulings, that they must still submit the form.
"It makes no difference whether plaintiffs must pay for the contraceptive coverage," the attorneys said in court papers. "What matters is that, in their religious judgment, it would be immoral for them to contract with a vendor that will provide the offending coverage to their plan beneficiaries."
A November decision ruled in favour of the government, which argued that all faith-based organisations are not exempt from submitting EBSA-700.
"Unlike plaintiffs here, the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby were closely held for-profit companies that were not eligible for the accommodations," the government's attorneys said.
"The linchpin of the court's 'very specific' holding in Hobby Lobby was the existence of the opt-out alternative afforded to organisations such as the plaintiffs in this case."
Priests for Life does not have to comply with the prior ruling while their appeal is pending.
