


From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block. When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, few would've predicted that one of the most contentious features would have to do with contraception. But today, there are more than 40 lawsuits challenging a requirement for most health plans to provide contraceptive coverage. The suits charge the government with violating religious freedom. And as NPR's Julie Rovner reports, it's not just religious groups making that claim.

JULIE ROVNER, BYLINE: Religious entities themselves, things like churches and groups that employ only members of a single faith, are exempt from the so-called contraceptive mandate. And the administration has promised to find a compromise to address the complaints of nonprofit groups like Catholic hospitals and universities. They employ people of many faiths but argue that providing contraception or sterilization services violates their beliefs. So, their lawsuits are on hold waiting until the administration acts.

But what about for-profit companies? David Green is the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain with 500 stores in 41 states and more than 22,000 employees.

DAVID GREEN: Hobby Lobby has always been a tool for the Lord's work. For me and my family, charity equals ministry, which equals the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

ROVNER: Green said on a conference call last fall that he's always run his company in accordance with his Christian faith. His stores are not open on Sunday and his company contributes time and funds to Christian organizations, both in the U.S. and internationally. But he says the contraceptive requirement directly challenges that faith.

GREEN: And our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful and has supported our family and thousands of our employees and their families.

ROVNER: But in the coming months, Green's choice will be to comply with the mandate or pay as much as $1.3 million a day in fines. That's because courts, including the Supreme Court, denied him an injunction that would've delayed the requirement while his lawsuit works its way through the courts. Hobby Lobby is one of four private companies that have sued but haven't been able to win a delay of the requirement. Ten other private lawsuits have been granted a temporary stay. But as Brigitte Amiri of the ACLU points out, only one of those cases so far has resulted in a decision on the religious discrimination arguments.

BRIGITTE AMIRI: And the court in that case held that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff could not show that its religious liberty would be violated by the rule.

ROVNER: Amiri says she's hopeful and optimistic that in the end backers of the contraceptive coverage requirement will prevail, at least in the case of the private companies that are suing.

AMIRI: Once you enter the public sphere, and particularly when you operate a for-profit company, you can't impose your religious beliefs on your employees.

ROVNER: And she says there's plenty of court precedent to back that up.

AMIRI: The courts have routinely held that employers that have a religious objection, for example, to paying their female and male employees equally based on beliefs that the Bible says that men should be head of household, they still have to comply with federal law that says that you have to treat your male and female employees equally.


FRANCIS MANION: What all of these entities are arguing is that the mandate does in fact impose a substantial burden on their religious exercise or beliefs. And that the government cannot show a compelling interest in pursuing this mandate against these entities.


MANION: For instance, we already have massive government programs that provide contraceptives for free.

ROVNER: Manion says one possibility would simply be to make that program universal, rather than limit it to people with low incomes. But that would likely raise the same fight that currently goes on over abortion, about whether people who object to something want their tax dollars used to pay for it. One thing those on both sides of the debate agree on, this is all likely to wind up before the Supreme Court probably next year. Julie Rovner, NPR News Washington.






Support comes from: