You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.
Posting a Diary Entry
Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as
is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.
When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.
If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.
ATTENTION: READ THE RULES.
One diary daily maximum.
Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries
that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
A federal judge in Missouri has ruled that the Catholic owner of a mining and ceramics business cannot invoke his religious views to avoid paying for an employee's birth control coverage as part of her health insurance. The case is one of 30 initiated around the country in such matters.
Plaintiffs were Frank O’Brien and O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, an 87-worker St. Louis-based company engaged mining, processing and distributing refractory and ceramic raw materials and products. They claimed that the provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring birth control to be included in company-supplied employees' health care insurance would violate their religious beliefs and that the alternative of paying fines for not providing insurance coverage "would have a crippling impact on their ability to survive economically.”
What would mining and ceramics processing, production and distribution have to do with religion? Perhaps nothing?
The plaintiffs argued much of their case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion" with a rule or law unless there is a paramount government interest. The U.S Health and Human Services defendants argued, among other things, that a corporation is not a person and therefore cannot "exercise" a religion under RFRA.
District Court Judge Carol Jackson, a George H.W. Bush-appointee who has served on the court for 20 years, chose to reject plaintiffs' claims on "subtantial burden" and thus did not rule on whether a corporation is a person under RFRA. That leaves open the probability that we'll see that objection being raised in other cases being heard on this matter. What Jackson did say was this:
The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs
will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions
by health care providers and patients covered by OIH’s plan, subsidize someone else’s
participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. This Court rejects
the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which
plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial
burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise.
RFRA is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens
on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion
forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s
religious practices upon others. RFRA does not protect against the slight burden on
religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the
conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ
from one’s own.
In other words, as Ian Millhiser points out, the "plaintiffs can hardly claim they refuse to provide a benefit to their employees that those employees could later use to purchase birth control, because they are already providing those employees with a benefit they can use to purchase birth control—money."
Until the appeal, assuming one occurs, chalk up one defeat for the Right in its war on women.
4:24 PM PT: Armando has pointed out that the O'Brien decision is in direct conflict with the Hercules decision from Colorado in July.
Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 02:07 PM PDT.