This is apparently a one person organizationthat's trying to be the right wing ACLU

ACLJ Files Suit Challenging HHS Mandate for Violating Religious Beliefs of Missouri Business Owner

(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life legal organization that focuses on constitutional law, today filed a first-of-a-kind federal lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on behalf of a Missouri business owner who contends the HHS contraceptive mandate violates his constitutionally-protected religious beliefs. The lawsuit also requests that the court issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the HHS from requiring those who have religious objections to abide by the mandate, which requires employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The ACLJ represents Frank R. O'Brien and O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC (OIH) - a holding company based in St. Louis, Missouri. O'Brien is chairman of OIH which operates a number of businesses that explore, mine, and process refractory and ceramic raw materials, with its products going to more than 40 countries.

The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the HHS mandate from a private business owner and his company. Until now, only religious organizations or institutions have brought lawsuits challenging the mandate.

"The HHS mandate would require business people like our client to leave their religious beliefs at home every day as a condition of doing business in our society," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ who is representing O'Brien. "The HHS mandate tells people like Frank O'Brien that they have to choose between conducting their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, or conducting their business in a manner consistent with the government's values. The constitution does not allow the government to impose such a choice."

O'Brien, a Catholic, says his religious beliefs provide the framework for the operation of his businesses, which employ 87 people. The company website states the OIH mission "is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society." OIH’s statement of the company's values begins with the following: "Integrity. Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone's personal belief system."

O'Brien also has implemented a variety of company-participating programs to assist employees in purchasing homes, saving for the college education of their children, and being able to retire.

The lawsuit contends that the HHS mandate "imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs' free exercise of religion by coercing Plaintiffs to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial penalties to the government."

Manion rejects criticism that opposition to the mandate somehow prohibits others from obtaining insurance coverage they desire.

"O'Brien and other people of faith aren't looking to stand in the way of anybody's access to anything," said Manion. "They just don't want the government forcing them to pay for services that go against their sincerely-held beliefs. The State of Missouri has its own 'contraceptives mandate,' but, unlike the Obama Administration's Department of HHS, Missouri respects and protects those employers, like Frank O'Brien, with religious objections. There is no good reason why the federal government couldn't -- and shouldn't - do the same. The Constitution, in fact, demands nothing less."

The lawsuit, posted here, asks the court to declare that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit also requests the court to issue a permanent injunction to halt implementation of the HHS mandate for those who have religious objections.

The lawsuit names as defendants, the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Sebelius; the Department of the Treasury and Secretary Geithner; and the Department of Labor and Secretary Solis. The ACLJ is being assisted in this lawsuit by the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy, a Chicago-based educational and advocacy group.

Led by ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C.


http://aclj.org/obamacare/aclj-files-suit-challenging-hhs-mandate-for-violating-religious-beliefs-of-missouri-business-owner

After the blather on the company's web page about making work a pleasing offering to the Lord (um, you might want to read Genesis again about what is a pleasing offering to the Lord - hint - it involves meat) and the 10 Commandments, I'm absolutely sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt that they wouldn't discriminate over a person's religion - so long as they were Catholic or Protestant. Maybe even Jewish. After that, yeah not so sure.

I think Frank O'Brien is an ally of Rex Sinquefield. Big RW player in Missouri

I'll bet my allowance that Rex is involved in this.

BTW, his petition to end tenure will cost MO $1.5 BILLION.

http://www.christyco.com/About_OIH.html

materials used to line high temperature furnaces used in basic metal industries such as steel and aluminum. So someone whose product is brick and clay (albeit highly engineered brick and clay!) is claiming a religious exemption.

http://www.christyco.com/industrial_services.html

Oh, it's on!

His employees work, he compensates them. How is it any of his business where the wages and benefits go, once he has compensated them for their work?

No rights are being violated. He's not, at all, being required to take birth control pills if he doesn't want to.

This is about his belief he has the right to force his religious beliefs on his employees.

If this holds up then what's next? An employer saying you can't use the wages that came from them to buy pork chops on Friday? Or a 'immodest' bathing suit? Or whatever?

This whole thing is moronic and I hope they keep it up until November.

to the insured individual. Someone has to pay for it - thus the employer as part of the cost of the plan. That is, if health insurance is entirely paid by the employer.

He's asking not to purchase products based on conscience. We'll see what the court says.

who is actually paying for the job benefit.

From your perspective it is the employer paying for the employee's health insurance benefit. From my perspective it is the employee who is paying for their share of a pooled insurance plan, that they have worked for and earned.
It's not "his" (the employer's) money that pays for the health insurance. It's something the employee has earned. That's my point of view.

if the employer can claim 100% of the cost as a business expense, it is just that and not an earning for the employee. If the employee can defer her/his taxes with a portion of insurance costs(because they pay a portion) - then it is earning and not subject to the whim of the employer.

A benefits package is part of an employee's compensation. So...by claiming that his religious values are being violated by having the health insurance the employee has earned pay for contraceptives, he is in effect saying his religion can dictate how you spend your money.

The attack is on labor and women, not religion.

And any religion that dishonors women and labor is not worth the adoration.

O'Brien Industrial Holdings

Christy Companies Home Page
Mission

Our mission is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society.
Values
Integrity

Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone's personal belief system.
Customers

Our customers provide for our very existence as a commercial entity. Our relationship with them will be mutually beneficial.
People

We are an organization that will attract and keep outstanding personnel. Mean spirited behavior will not be tolerated.

Well, that's obviously not true.

I hope his private insurance company gives him a "special rate" to reflect their exposure to more medical costs that his religious beliefs are creating for them. BC is something private insurance wants to support because a significant increase in unwanted pregnancies still end up effecting their bottom line....and that will make the cost of insurance more expensive than it already is.

Any employer who refuses to allow birth control coverage would instead be billed for the cost of full term pregnancy and child birth coverage. It would, after all, be the reasonably expected outcome for the average woman who has been denied birth control.

And what if the child reluctantly birthed is also special needs? All of that cost should be borne by the godly righteous employer.

Well my personal belief system says that I (and any woman) have a right to control my body thru the use of birth control. So how's that mission statement workin' out for you

being discriminated against by giving their workers full coverage in health care.

"We hate uppity ni.....s"

No picking and choosing there, Skippy, you are ALL IN.

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2012, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

The business can't show any.

But they can show legal costs for bringing this to court. Very poor business decision, not to mention religious interpretation.

As for violation rights, Scalia himself ruled laws and regulations pertaining to secular owned businesses apply to religious-owned ones. It's going to be hard for even him to wiggle out of that.

with more pregnancies and pediatric care. I hope this is well publicized. When it is discussed in theory it's easier for the religious nuts to make their 1st amendment argument.
In practice, a concrete example exposes the ridiculous nature of the claim.

He's stringently Catholic. I try to tell him that prohibiting employees, or anyone, from dealing with the insurance company directly (even under government regulation) to voluntarily buy contraception, or not, is in no way an act of religious liberty. Not even Scalia can warp that out, and he's already ruled about this on a related case.

I also try to tell him that not even Catholics are going to support their bishops on this, and vote against Obama because of it, but my Dad only talks to Catholics aged 70 and older, and to him it looks like there's overwhelming support.

I don't think he or the bishops have realized the change in this culture. Teen pregnancies have come way down for the first time in living memory, and it looks like its because teens are using contraception. If teens have gotten the message on contraception and reproductive rights, despite all the "abstinence-only" teachings, it means that young and middle age adults must have as well. This is all because of the Internet, that the information is out there despite conservative religious efforts to suppress it. This whole change has happened withing the last decade.

This is the reason why Limbaugh's attacks on Sandra Fluke caused him so much trouble. More women, including so-called conservatives, are using contraception. In the 90s, he might have gotten away with it.

Meanwhile, the Catholic church has been terribly damaged by the child abuse scandals. The mind-bending complaint that gay marriage is an attack on its religious freedom undermines it even more. Now, it says the same thing with this contraception issue, and the bishops sound positively whiny. And this is true of the other sects and people who feel their religious liberty is being impinged.

This is nothing compared to countries and times where you couldn't have Catholic Church's in the open, where priests could not appear as such in public, where Catholics faced physical persecution and jail and for worshiping. All of this still applies to some countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The claim of it here is just laughable.

But, I think four or five members of the Supreme Court are Catholic, including Scalia, so there's reason to worry anyway.

Hell, aren't there religions that don't believe in ANY medical treatments, like vaccines and antibiotics?

I guess people with radical religious views will just have a competitive advantage over their less religious counterparts since they can not buy insurance for their employees, since insurance is gambling anyway.

insurance they offer. There is nothing to stop a Muslim from excluding coverage of Christians who refuse to convert to Islam (for the paranoid RWers out there).

This is the great-grand-daddy of slippery slopes.

"In Reynolds vs. U.S., the court unanimously rejected a Mormon's challenge to a federal law banning bigamy, saying religious practices judged to be criminal had no constutional protection" (Smithsonian mag., Jan 2012, p. 74).

This is one of many court rulings putting limits on religious freedom; specifically when it contradicts the laws of our country.

Similarly? When a Quaker pacifist wants to refuse to pay the portion of his income tax that supports war, and the Defense Department? He is NOT granted that exemption, from general law. He has to pay the full taxes, like everybody else.

Fact is, there is massive precident in American jurisprudence against allowing current radical Catholic demands for special exemption, for them, from the law of the land. In this case, from elements of Obama's health bill.

stood in the way of this insanity. And should Obama fail to be re-elected, that court will swing much farther right.

year is admit that HCR was really just a tax wrapped up to look like something else.

Look at the Mormon polygamy case for example.

Which would be fun to cite especially, during a Romney run.

To be sure? We'll need a better Supreme Court.

says Marriott Corp. They could prevent their employees from consuming caffeine, right? Can Starbucks counter?

Someone's Constitutional rights are not protected when expression of them violates someone elses Constitutional rights. That is the struggle we will have with this issue. These organzations are NOT preventing people from using birth control pills. They are simply refusing to provide them. Unless you can prove there is a Constitutional right to have birth control provided to you, I am guessing we will lose this one.


Edit to add: See the Lemon Test.

Same as everyone else.

1) No special exemption; 2) especially not to favor one (anti-abortion) religion, in particular.

Grounds therefore? At least two. Including ... avoiding a state sponsorship/favoring/establishment, of one particular religion.

While 3) a Protestant, whose church/religion allows contraception, seeking contraceptive service in a publicly-funded Catholic hospital, but denied those services? Is having her religion, being discriminated against.

Cases here may not be absolutely clear. But just from these early considerations, I'd hazard to say there's more than enough here for a Constitutional scholar like Obama to work with.

Anybody out there working on a legal case/brief for this yet? That cares to make it public?

Private citizens have begun to protest and there is even a suit (in Missouri, I believe). From a pure legal standpoint, I don't see how this can withstand the Constitution. I will be happy to be proved wrong.

For example? If you are a pacifist Quaker, can you refuse to pay the portion of your income tax that supports the Defense Department?

If you are Jewish, can you refuse to pay the portion of your property/school tax, that pays for pork and hot dogs in the cafeteria?

There are plenty of relevant cases here.

Then too? Consider the rights of employees. If they are Protestant, and their church allows contraception and so forth. Can the employer refuse to honor their beliefs?

The Federal government does not provide the option to pick and choose where your taxes are spent, as it is 100% impossible to do. Thus, even if they want to allow this, there is NO WAY to calculate it, track it, etc.

However, it is VERY easy to provide and obtain options like which medical procedures, drugs, etc. will be covered.

I fail to see how these cases are relevant.

force him to have an abortion or buy birth control pills or get sterilized? So how does it even apply to him? What if all insurance policies covered those things, would he opt out of insurance for himself and his family then since it would be so offensive? These guys are making the U.S. a joke of a place to live. He can still believe whatever he wants to believe, there is nothing in this law stopping him from believing in his religion.

Things like this and their bible thumbing is exactly the reason I would never apply for a job at Hobby Lobby or Uline, never, ever.

bouncing around in my head for a while about this subject...
Since these people hate contraception and abortion, they are claiming that their consciences demand they not be forced to provide them, and most of them would like them banned. And to them that is perfectly fine, especially if they are the only potential providers, and the person seeking the care will be unable to get it.
So what if it WERE illegal? Ban abortion and contraception. Make it a felony to get an abortion or to provide one. Make possession of contraception a misdemeanor. They have to know that not everyone will agree with them. And they have to know that people will break the law. Banning drugs hasn't made them go away. So will people be able to claim that their beliefs and consciences demanded that they provide those services? A rape victim (because the ones I've spoken to do not want an exception for rape) goes to a doctor and begs for his help. He sneaks her in around midnight, does it, and they agree to never speak of it again. This desperate woman begged for his help, and his conscience refused to let him turn his back on her.
The cons say that pharmacists shouldn't have any consequences for refusing people. Should this doctor or this woman face any? To the cons, she is a murderess. Does it go both ways?

It should go both ways. My beliefs say the opposite of theirs, so are my beliefs just as viable as theirs? It hurts my conscience to see women die because of a dead fetus in their body that the doctor can't remove or the poor couple with 10 children they can't support. And why did that pharmacist conscience allow him to be okay with studying about birth control etc. while in pharmacy school...shouldn't that have been offensive too and if the profession offends them so much why didn't they choose another field. IT DOES GO BOTH WAYS. And our consciences should have just as much validity as theirs.

I thought we had HIPAA laws to prevent discrimination against people with medical conditions. Those don't just go away because he's an employer. Is he allowed to monitor employees health records at will because they have an insurance policy?

forcing female employees to answer invasive, personal questions about birth control being used for any reason is sexual harassment. It sets up a hostile work environment.

what they want to do is unconstitutional and this will be thrown out of court.

If they want to do business like this, then they need to relocate to Taliban controlled territory in Afghanistan.

about 'sharia law'---goodgawdamitey.....what kind of 'law' would this lead to?

It's all politics right now. Election year campaigning on all sides.

Take it all the way to the Supreme Court Mr. Missouri businessman. Go fight for your right to dictate religious dogma to the Government. It's time for the Separation of the Church and the State to be re-affirmed. If it isn't then we'll have a better idea of what kind of a country we live in. Democratic or Theocratic.

did the insurance plan that the company provided for as a benifit allow for contraceptive products to be purchased

under the plan prior to the rig a marole now taking center stage?

What I mean is: Did he allow his employees access to the same insurance plan that provided for contraceptive product for the previous 10 years?

Or did the guy find Jesus in this instance only?

who just happens to be active in Right wing politics in Missouri, would use his faith as an excuse to attack the Obama administration! Why, the very idea!

http://www.thomasinternational.org/about/adboard/frankobrien.htm

Bloomberg News report: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-15/contraception-coverage-rule-assailed-by-catholic-businessman

CNS News was founded by Brent Bozell in 1998, so you can be sure it's just like Fox News or WorldNetDaily. The website Conwebwatch.tripod.com has articles debunking CNS.

but would someone here explain to me please how its constitutional for the feds to require private companies to provide birth control because I am a bit confused to tell the truth.

a health insurance policy meeting minimum standards of care and prescription drugs. Birth control pills are a common prescription drug, therefore they are included under the minimum standard.

to time pass stuff that the courts throw out as unconstitutional. Will this withstand such a challenge or what?

HEAR THAT??!!! I was offended that my beliefs were ignored when Bush lied us into war. YEAH??!!!

Call them "constitutionally-protected religious beliefs" if you want, but they were indeed violated...