Advertisement

July 24, 2014

Obama Administration Revises the Contraceptive Mandate, but Provides No Accommodations for For-Profit Companies with Religious Objections

On February 1, 2013, the Obama administration issued new proposed rules which would amend the contraceptive mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The proposed rules, which can be found here, provide no relief to for-profit companies with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate.  Instead, the new proposed rules provide some additional accommodations for religious employers.  For example, under the new proposed rules, an entity may qualify for the religious employer exemption even if it serves or hires people of different religious faiths.  The proposed rule also contains provisions by which non-profit religious organizations such as hospitals and universities would not have to directly pay for contraceptive services, but could instead have their insurer provide such services at no cost to either the employee or the religious employer.

Currently, there are more than 40 pending legal challenges to the contraceptive mandate.  The administration had indicated for some time that it planned to issue new proposed rules to accommodate religious employers, and was ordered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals provide an update on this plan by mid-February 2013.  While it is too early to tell whether these new proposed rules will have any significant effect on the pending lawsuits brought by non-profit religious employers, it is clear that it will have no impact on the lawsuits brought by for-profit employers.  Those cases continue to make their way through the various courts of appeal.  Recently, both the Seventh Circuit and the Eighth Circuit enjoined the application of the contraceptive mandate to certain for-profit business.  See Grote v. Sebelius, Case No. 13-1077 (7th Cir. Jan. 30, 2013), and Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius, Case No. 13-1118 (8th Cir. February 1, 2013)

Given the splits developing in the federal courts across the country this issue remains on a collision course with the Supreme Court.

© 2014 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Mark D. Scudder, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Labor Law attorney
Of Counsel

Mark D. Scudder is an of counsel member of Barnes & Thornburg LLP's Labor and Employment Law Department in the Fort Wayne, Indiana office. Mr. Scudder’s practice covers virtually all areas of labor and employment law, including litigation concerning discriminatory practices, worker’s compensation benefits, collective bargaining agreement administration, and grievance and arbitration proceedings. He has represented clients in state and federal courts at all stages of litigation, from pre-litigation counseling, alternative dispute resolution, trial and appeal. He has also...

260-425-4618

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email