3393243536_fa332ea918_n

Obama administration tries to force Catholic employer to violate pro-life beliefs or pay $9,672,500 a year

UPDATE:  Hercules Industries and the Newland family have won a preliminary injunction against the contraceptive mandate.

Hercules Industries, a Colorado-based HVAC manufacturer, is a family-owned business that has been operated for 50 years. Currently, the four Newland siblings – James, Paul, William, and Christine – own the business and employ 265 people. According to CNS News, the Department of Justice is taking action to ensure that this Catholic family complies with the demands of the contraceptive mandate in ObamaCare:

The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado–who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business–with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.

Who will win in the battle of Hercules vs. Obama? Photo credit: cliff1066 on Flickr.

The Newland family has taken the time to evaluate their own religious beliefs and has come to the conclusion that they are morally unable to provide contraceptives, abortifacients, abortion, or sterilization in their employee health care plan. Hercules Industries is self-insured by the Newlands. Despite the Newlands’ sincere religious beliefs, the Department of Justice insists that this Catholic family must comply with the contraceptive mandate.

The Newlands and Hercules Industries have brought a suit to stop the Obama administration from forcing them to violate their religious beliefs. The family and their business is being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund). On July 25, Matthew Bowman – an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom – argued for a preliminary injunction against the mandate.

According to the Newlands’ brief:

They believe that according to the Catholic faith their operation of Hercules must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that the adherence of their business practice according to such Catholic ethics and religious and moral teachings is a genuine calling from God, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that their Catholic faith requires them to integrate the gifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical social principles of Catholic teaching into their life and work.

I participated in a moot court session where Mr. Bowman gave his arguments and clearly laid out the Newlands’ case. Lest anyone think that the Newlands do not provide well for their employees, Hercules Industries’ current health care plan goes above and beyond many plans in its provisions for women. Mr. Bowman’s arguments detail the health benefits given to pregnant women, those who miscarry, and those with other reproductive-related issues. All the Newlands want is the freedom to adhere to their own religious beliefs concerning abortion, contraception, and sterilization – something that the First Amendment allows.

In order to force a person – or in many cases a corporation – to violate his or her religious beliefs, the government must have a compelling interest. The government is held to a strict scrutiny standard, and it must find the “least restrictive means” possible to enforce its rules. While the government claims that it has a compelling interest in forcing the Newlands to violate their strongly held religious beliefs, this claim rings false. In their filed brief, the Department of Justice, claims:

Thus, it is just not true … that the burdens of the [regulations] fall on religious organizations “but almost no others.”‘

However, written into ObamaCare is an exemption for “grandfathered plans.” Any corporation with this type of health care plan will not be forced to comply with the contraceptive mandate at this time – even though such corporations will be forced to comply with other portions in the preventive care section of ObamaCare. By exempting certain companies – even without religious reasons – the Obama administration has demonstrated that there really is no compelling government interest in forcing the Newlands or other religious employers to violate their beliefs. How much sense does it really make to say, in effect, “We will not force countless employers to provide contraception, but we will force companies owned by religious people to provide it”? (Grandfathered health care plans cover millions of employees in the United States.)

In short, President Obama’s Justice Department thinks the answer is simple: comply with our demands, pay millions of dollars in fines, or quit your family business:

Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,’ the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: ‘[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.’

Employers who fail to comply with the contraceptive mandate will be forced to pay $100 per day, per employee, as a fine. (The provisions of ObamaCare are complicated, and under certain circumstances, the amount may be lessened.)

With 265 employees, a business like the Newlands’ would need to pay the government $26,500 per day if they decided not to comply with Sebelius’s regulation and insured their employees anyway. Over 365 days that would amount to $9,672,500.

As Mr. Bowman states:

The government shouldn’t punish people of faith for making decisions in accordance with their faith. Every American should know that a government with the power to do this to anyone can do this–and worse–to everyone. The abortion pill mandate unconstitutionally coerces the leadership of Hercules Industries to violate their religious beliefs and consciences under the threat of heavy fines and penalties. That is simply not acceptable in America.

  • Gordon Duffy

    What about the freedom of religion of their employees not to have their employer making these decisions on their behalf? Do the consciences of the employees count for nothing?

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Er, what?

    • http://www.facebook.com/beverly.harlton Beverly Harlton

      No one is preventing the employees from obtaining contraceptives or having abortions. They are free to do whatever they want. Their employers are not “making decisions” for them. Unless their consciences dictate that someone else should foot the bill so they can neuter themselves or murder their children in utero, there is no violation of conscience on behalf of the employees.

    • LoveTheLeast8

      Employees can buy whatever services that they want. They just can’t demand an employer to offer a form of compensation against their will.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-K-Winters/100000836504492 John K. Winters

      The employees are free to provide this for themselves or find employment elsewhere. The employer isn’t saying the employee cannot pursue contraception or abortion, they’re just saying they’re not paying for it. I support the employer.

  • Guest

    If you people were actually interested in reducing the number of abortions in this country, you would be supporting contraception access, not limiting it.

    In this (misguided) country, health insurance is treated as compensation for work, like wages or a salary. There’s a minimum wage, so why shouldn’t there be a minimum level of health insurance coverage?

    • http://www.facebook.com/sara.m.dix Sara Marie Dix

      Why don’t you do some research on the Catholic faith you idiot! Its called abstinence… not contraception!

      • Lifeofpi

        Let’s not resort to name calling please…

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Actually, pro-life policies are effective in reducing abortion rates, and abstinence education is effective. If you’d like to explore these subjects further, here’s a great author to start with: http://www.nationalreview.com/author/47413

      You’re also using the term “access” in a *very* dubious way. Properly understood, access is the ability to obtain something without some sort of government barrier or coercion keeping it from you. But liberals use “access” to mean something very different: forcing others to, with THEIR own money, either give something to you or help you pay for it. This concept raises serious ethical questions that the modern Left outrageously conditions people not to think about.

    • http://www.facebook.com/beverly.harlton Beverly Harlton

      No form of birth control outside of abstinence is 100% effective; thus, the more widely it is used, the more it will fail. When it fails, some women will seek out abortions. More birth control –> more birth control failures –> more abortions.

      • Laura Scobell

        Mary was abstinant

        • stormrdr

          And citing a one-time-in-the-history-of-forever event, which you probably believe to be fiction anyway, as a counter-argument is just silly.

    • LoveTheLeast8

      Anyone can get contraceptives. The question is whether people should be forced to buy it for others.

  • Pingback: Obama Administration Tries to Force Catholic Employer to Violate Pro-Life Beliefs or Pay $9,672,500 a Year | Live Action News & Opinion | A mí, háblame en Cristiano

  • peach

    If the Newlands are so concerned about their employees’ personal lives, then they should only hire fellow Catholics with the same beliefs of them. Then they would still have to offer the coverage but they could rest safe in the knowledge that their employees aren’t using it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=650358407 Jason Jankowiak

      Really? You are advocating religious discrimination in hiring practices? I guess we can also stop hiring blacks, women, disabled, etc. Good idea, peach!

      Of course, your premise is garbage anyway. The Newlands are not at all concerned with their employees’ “personal lives” at all; it’s the exact opposite. The government is actually trying to force them to get involved in their employees’ personal lives, and they want none of it. It’s unfortunate that not only are you apparently a bigot who is against the First Amendment, but an illiterate one.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Peach, the Newlands are not concerned with regulating their employees’ personal lives. As multiple people have stated in the comments, anyone can go buy their own contraceptives if that’s what they want to do. They can also choose a different health insurance plan if they prefer. What the Newlands don’t want is to personally responsible for providing something they have a moral objection to. Anyone should be able to respect that.

    • Kevin

      Who enforces your new hiring policy on the Newlands running of their business, Peach? You make yourself seem unserious by spouting Marxism like that.

  • Pingback: Obamacare: US judge lets Catholic-owned firm cut contraception from coverage – Christian Science Monitor | MajorMedical.mobi

  • Pingback: Socon or Bust » Save the Christians…

  • Pingback: Give Up Your Religion or Give Up Your Business | The Virtuous House

  • joe9152

    why are muslims exempt from government insurance programs because they view insurance as a form of gambling and as such it violates the muslim religion?