In Braidwood Management v. Becerra , there was a lawsuit in the state of Texas challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because of certain aspects that various plaintiffs state conflict with their religious beliefs. The Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurance providers cover certain preventative care. This preventative care includes contraceptive coverage, HIV medication including Truvada and PrEP, and STD testing. One plaintiff, John Kelley, owns a Christian professional association called Kelley Orthodontics, which employs many individuals and wants to provide health insurance for its employees, but wants to exclude insurance coverage of contraception drugs, PrEP. However, the mandates of the contraceptives and HIV drugs make it impossible for Kelley to purchase health insurance that excludes this coverage.
Mr. Kelley has no need to purchase the health insurance with these specific requirements because he states his wife is past her child bearing years, his religion only supports monogamous relationships meaning he does not need STD testing, and does not want health insurance that covers HIV medications because he and his family members do not engage in behavior that transmits HIV. The second plaintiff, Joel Starnes, had similar reasons to Mr. Kelley, in which they both state that they are Christians and will not purchase health insurance that subsidizes abortifacient contraception or PrEP drugs that encourages homosexual behavior of which his religion does not support. Plaintiff, Steven Hortze, is in charge of Braidwood Management, which also filed suit with the other plaintiffs because his company is self-insured and must comply with the ACA health insurance coverage or face heavy financial penalties. Hortze is a Christian and wants to run his business according to Christian principles and teachings. He believes that insurance coverage of the HIV drugs promote “homosexual sodomy, prostitution, and heavy drug use, which are all against Hortze’s religious beliefs.”
Braidwood Management files suit for all self-insured employers who object to any of ACA’s mandates for religious reasons. Kelley Orthodontics sues for all religious employers that want to have health insurance with particular exclusions that align with their sincere religious reasons. And Mr. Kelley and Mr. Starnes sue for all individuals who wish to purchase health insurance that want exclusions from ACA’s mandates that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Therefore, the question that remains is, does ACA’s preventive care mandate violate a religious individual’s Free Exercise by requiring them to provide insurance coverage that does not align with their sincere religious beliefs?
I would argue that yes, the ACA does violate the plaintiffs' Free Exercise of Religion because it places a substantial burden upon the individual and there are no less restrictive means that the government can provide that can enable only certain health insurance coverage. I would argue that there is a substantial burden placed upon each of these plaintiffs because if they are required to pay for something they do not support, this clearly puts them at a disadvantage because they are being asked to either keep paying for something they do not believe in, or to pay penalties. A previous case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby touches base on this issue and in which the owners of Hobby Lobby a for-profit business would have a substantial monetary burden if they did not cover the contraceptives under the ACA mandate. This case can be applied to Braidwood Management v. Becerra because under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion, unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest, Braidwood Management should not have to comply with the ACA mandate if it violates the owner’s religious belief because it would put a substantial burden upon Mr. Hortze and his company if he has to pay the penalty for each employee. The Court declared that there would be a substantial burden placed upon Hobby Lobby owners and that there were no less restrictive means for the company to comply with their religious beliefs and the federal mandate. Since both Hobby Lobby and Braidwood Management are for-profit businesses, the Court should side with Braidwood Management as they did the Hobby Lobby owners in saying that the company could opt out of the contraception mandate because it must also comply with for-profit businesses as it does non-profit. Braidwood Management v. Becerra the plaintiffs should be allowed to opt out of the mandate because of another precedent case, Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania which pertains to a group of Catholic women who aim to help the elderly who also opposed the contraception mandate. This case declared that the Department of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury had the authority to create exemptions for religious employers. Even though this is a non-profit organization, Braidwood Management v. Becerra can be viewed through a similar lens because the court was looking at whether the departments had the authority to create the exemptions to the contraception mandate, not so much because it was a non-profit organization.
Do you agree that the ACA’s preventive care mandate violated the religious employers Free Exercise? If so, to what extent do you agree?
Sources: https://ballotpedia.org/Little_Sisters_of_the_Poor_Saints_Peter_and_Paul_Home_v._Pennsylvania
13 comments:
While I do see how Burwell v Hobby Lobby could be used as precedent, I think that there should be a distinction between coverage for contraceptives and coverage for HIV preventatives and medication. HIV is a serious, life-threatening disease and even if birth control coverage can be denied, drugs like PrEP and Truvada should not be. While employees who need these contraceptives and preventatives covered can have them covered under Obamacare or find a different employer, it does not feel correct for an employer to get out of paying for a possibly life-saving measure, regardless of their religious beliefs. For these reasons, I do not side with Mr. Kelley
This was a really interesting post! I believe that the ACA requiring them to have to pay for these services that go against their religion and practices that they do not believe in, is a direct violation of their free exercise of religion. I believe that requiring them to pay for these services that they don’t want to be included in their healthcare plans acts as a substantial burden on their religion and if they don’t do it, they have a significant financial burden placed on them in the form of fines. In addition to this, I wonder if there is a less restrictive means to accommodating these requests. However, based off of the facts of the case and similar previous cases such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, I believe that the ACA is violating their free exercise of religion.
Great post! Marlee brings up an interesting point: should precedents be adjusted based on coverage for contraceptives or abortifacients or HIV preventatives and medication? My only concern with this is the government entanglement required to deem what is medically necessary versus what can be religiously exempted. In this case, the plaintiffs argue that all of the above—contraceptives, HIV medication, PrEP, STD testing—would conflict with their religious beliefs if they were forced to pay and provide these in an insurance package to employees. I fear this would result in a slippery slope if the government can determine what is correct and incorrect about the plaintiff’s religious beliefs, despite contrasting opinions on life-saving measures.
Great post! I would have to agree that this is a violation of the business owner's First Amendment rights. The issue is that Mr. Kelley has religious beliefs that are being violated as certain employees want access to PrEP's, STD testing, and HIV medication, while Mr. Kelley feels as if it is against his religion. I see this similarly to Burwell, as employees are chose to work at this company, and the ACA is flawed in the sense where it should have enumerated exceptions for religion. My question for you is do you believe in Scalia's logic where exemptions should be made in legislation?
Interesting post! I like the way you drew a connection to the case we discussed in class, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. I agree with your ultimate conclusion for this case based on that precedent. While reading this, I began to wonder how the courts might treat public and private companies differently in terms of this issue of healthcare coverage and religious exemptions. For example, Hobby Lobby is a privately held company, whereas Dollar Tree, for example, is public. Anyone can buy shares of Dollar Tree (DLTR) on a public stock exchange and then "hold" a small piece of the business. I am curious as to whether or not this might impact the court's decision if a similar situation was to arise with a public company.
Great post! I do not side with Mr.Kelley in this case. I do not feel as if it is necessary for him to not cover HIV medications. Although it is against his beliefs, no one is making him use the medicines, they are just simply being covered. I think it is a bit radical for him to go to these lengths and I do not think that he is being substantially burdened.
Great job with your post! I agree that requiring the plantiffs to pay for these services does constitute a violation of their free exercise, since it requires them to directly endorse protections for practices or actions that are directly against their religion. However, I agree with Molly, as I believe that it is important to recognize the slippery slope this may cause with regards to how far this will go in terms of exempting certain services due to one's belief that they "promote certain activities that are inconsistent with one's religion". In other words, I feel like providing PrEP drugs is somewhat removed from the actual practice itself, but not far enough that it would be considered a "stretch" from the actual practice. What services may be considered too far of a "stretch" that it may raise some concerns about allowing religious exemptions for them?
This is a really interesting post! I agree with the points that Molly brought up in her comment. Does this then create a slippery slope for those who need these medications as a live saving tool? In the hobby lobby case these medications were potentially ending pregnancy but here they are medications that prevent HIV and STD testing is crucial to prevent the potential effects of STDs. The non-profit company's should be excluded as they have a right to use discrimination as a means of hiring and firing but the for-profit companies are little more complex. Because employers can't deny potential candidates due to sexual orientation these people would now be facing not having proper protection. While one isn’t constitutionally granted the right to work at a certain company the denial of life saving medicine due to owners personal beliefs creates a slippery slope. Could this set the precedent that any CEO that has religiously motivated beliefs toward medicine doesn’t have to cover employees? There are many religions that don’t support the LGBTQ+ community, mental health issues, blood transfusion, and more. This is not saying that the beliefs of the plaintiffs are invalid or wrong but to question if the overall interest to protect American citizens working at for-profit companies outweighs those beliefs?
It seems to me that the Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision should be applicable in this case, as well. Since companies are legally defined "persons," their right to free exercise can be violated, and forcing Kelley Orthodontics to pay for employee health insurance that includes medications they believe promote sacrilegious acts clearly presents a substantial burden. Employees can still obtain PrEP and other drugs outside of their company's health insurance program, so forcing Kelley Orthodontics to pay for such medications is not taking the least restrictive means possible, a requirement under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
This is an interesting post. I do agree that ACA’s preventative care mandate violates the religious employers Free Exercise. If religious employers are being forced to pay for insurance that directly goes against their religious beliefs, and there is a less restrictive method that could be used, I don’t see why ACA is choosing to not make an accommodation. The accommodation being, an insurance plan which excludes the aspects of the regular insurance plan that conflict with the employers religious beliefs. I would view the money being spent on the regular insurance plan as a direct monetary burden placed upon the religious employers which is substantial enough of a burden for the ACA to make an accommodation.
Good Post! I agree with your argument. I agree that this case reminds me a lot of Hobby Lobby Stores v Burwell as well, and I think is a valuable precedent. The majority in that decision also applied to this case. The preventative care mandate does directly burden the free exercise of Mr. Kelley. However while I do agree with your opinion I think people bring up valuable arguments regarding the type of medicine and care present in this case. Different from Hobby Lobby, the medicines being administered are meant to help with more than just contraception, and in some cases it may be a life threatening event. Therefore I do think there is a compelling state interest in making sure everyone gets proper medical care. However despite this, I do agree with your opinion.
We have gone over this issue several times. I think when it comes to employees especially ones with a medical precedent the employees must do the job they signed up for. They do not have a right to work for the company it is a job and if that goes against their beliefs they can choose to work somewhere else.
I completely agree with Jake in that a person does not have the right to work somewhere. Having medical influences changes the stakes for this case. I think the compelling state interest should be siding with proper and full medical care for employees regardless of religious inclination.
Post a Comment