There are 71 companies now, according to what I've been able to find, that are taking advantage of the SCOTUS ruling, and claiming a religious
exemption from the BC mandate, either partially or entirely (i.e. a few methods or all BC). The following article (from an admittedly liberal source)
lists those sources and some of the reasons given by company leaders for their decision.
A quote from the article:
71 Companies - Mother Jones article
The plaintiffs maintain that the federal government, by requiring contraceptive coverage under the ACA, is infringing on their religious views.
Like Hobby Lobby, many of these companies had already covered birth control under their insurance plans, but they oppose the ACA's rules requiring
health plans to cover contraceptives including the drug Plan B, which they argue causes abortions. The Thomas More Law Center, a law firm
"dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians," has filed 11 cases on behalf of 33 plaintiffs against the ACA
contraceptive mandate. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the center asserts in an amicus brief supporting Hobby Lobby, protects employers
fighting the mandate "from being forced, under threat of ruinous government fines, to fund products and services that violate their sincerely held
"Forced" is not quite accurate, though, as my colleague Stephanie Mencimer reported last week. An employer doesn't have to provide health insurance to
its employees at all; in fact, it's probably cheaper for a company to instead pay the tax that would help subsidize its employees' coverage obtained
through the exchanges or Medicaid
(emphasis is mine)
I find this quote very interesting. It is clear there is more to this than a violation of religious belief, as the companies were just fine with
having it in their plans before. They are reacting to the Mandate - i.e. do this or you will be fined - aspect and using the BC methods they believe
are akin to abortion for the justification of their protest. It makes this more complicated - if they were ok with providing it before, how could it
suddenly be religiously abhorrent to them? Did they not know it was available to their employees before this? Or is it merely a reaction against
what they feel is government overreach and the religious claim is how they are combating it? While some companies may have already walked-the-walk
before this ruling, many were providing BC with no objection prior to the Mandate.
Something to think about... I find this, personally, suspect. Why was this not considered in the Hobby Lobby ruling??? How can something be ok with
one's religion one day and not ok the next??? And how can that sudden change be justified?????
***ETA - I cannot find where a company that previously provided BC is now claiming ALL BC is against the owners religious beliefs.
The list of companies includes Eden Foods, an organic food company. This is a special case, as there is a backlash in the form of boycotts for
companies making this choice. With an organic foods company, this could have a serious impact on their bottom line, due to the large percentage of
folks who use their products being against the ruling - or will it?? Hard to say...we shall see what this does or does not do to their bottom line.
In the case of Eden Foods, the "religious belief," according to one Judge, was more akin to anti-government sentiment:
6th Circuit's Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey later wrote in her opinion on the case, showed that Potter's "deeply held religious beliefs more
resembled a laissez-faire, anti-government screed."
Interesting. (From Mother Jones article)
Eden Farms in the Wake of Hobby Lobby
edit on 7-7-2014 by AboveBoard because: add quote
edit on 7-7-2014 by AboveBoard because: more information and
edit on 7-7-2014 by AboveBoard because: clarity
edit on 7-7-2014 by AboveBoard because: more