It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Missouri Man Is First Private Business Owner to Sue HHS Over Contraception Mandate

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Missouri Man Is First Private Business Owner to Sue HHS Over Contraception Mandate


The American Center for Law and Justice has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court
on behalf of a Missouri business owner.

The suit requests a permanent injunction prohibiting the HHS from requiring those who have religious objections to abide by the ObamaCare insurance mandate.

The owner of the private business is a Catholic, and employs 87 people.


By Susan Jones
March 15, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - A conservative civil rights group has filed a first-of-its-kind federal lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of a Missouri business owner who says the HHS contraceptive mandate violates his constitutionally-protected religious beliefs.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Center for Law and Justice, requests a permanent injunction prohibiting the HHS from requiring those who have religious objections to abide by the mandate, which requires employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the HHS mandate from a private business owner and his company. Until now, only religious organizations or institutions have brought lawsuits challenging the mandate.

Frank R. O'Brien, a Catholic, is the chairman of St.-Louis-based O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, which operates a number of businesses that explore, mine, and process refractory and ceramic raw materials.

Article - HHS Suit


The suit is here ---> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Okay, this is what happens when your medical records and perscriptions are not private. Not one person other than your doctor and pharmasist should know what your medical needs are.
Insurance and employers do not have the right to dictate what your medical needs are. No matter what the courts decide, this privacy issue has me very upset.
Why should an employer even know about your birth control pills? Or what you take them for? Since birth control is only one reason to have them prescribed, out of many reasons.

Thanks for posting this thread, and I appologize for stepping on my soap box about it.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I don't get this at all. People who believe in an imaginary friend can dictate health issues of people they hire? Does their religion somehow say "you shall thrust upon everyone else whatever you believe"?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I don't get this at all. People who believe in an imaginary friend can dictate health issues of people they hire? Does their religion somehow say "you shall thrust upon everyone else whatever you believe"?


From the lawsuit:

5. O’Brien contends that by requiring him to choose between conducting his business in
a manner consistent with his religion, or paying ruinous fines and penalties, the Mandate violates
his rights under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and violates the
Administrative Procedure Act.


This is a U.S. Constitution issue.

The "dictation" is coming from the U.S. Government.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
What makes this such a huge issue, is that right now they are attacking the Catholics and it seems half the country is on the side of the gov. because they don't share the same beliefs as the Catholics. But what we have here, is a turning point in our freedom. If they are successful at trampling all over the constitutional rights of the Catholics, watch out... because next time it might be an issue that does involve you, and by then it might be too late. You won't like it when you are watching your freedoms get stripped away. And the more they get away with it, the easier it is for them to come back and do it again and again to whomever they choose.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


He needs to find a new business endeavor... instead of filing frivolous lawsuits that waste time and money.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I think the question PsykoOps posed is exactly why this Pat Robertson funded suit will fail. His religion is his own and he can adhere to its teachings. But he's moving beyond his rights, in my opinion, when he creates an environment where his employees must also live by his religious beliefs.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LuckyLucian
 


The fact is,

most insurance policies offer prescription coverage,
and have been for years, without prejudice.

That's why I fail to see the purpose of a "mandate".

People that want coverage have never really been denied.
(employer policies do not even deny on pre-existing conditions)

Some problems do exist for unemployed and for workers
who's employers have no insurance plans,
and for many part time workers.
Then the insurance companies can and will deny some people.

And for some strange reason, many "uninsured" people seem to be buying the medications anyway



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


sigh
why don't people want to see:shk:

this is a religious group trying to exempt themselves
from a law that applies to everybody else
on the basis that said law violates their religious beliefs

nothing to do with freedom of speech or religion at all

as an above poster pointed out your medical info should be private
the problem isn't that xtian employers are being forced to pay for birth control.

the crux [pun intended] of the problem is that xtian employers are aware that
their employees may have access to BC via their insurance and are seeking to stop that

your using BC is none of your employers business, period

especially the RCC's business. they're just trying to get out of paying or want a special CHEAPER plan
how do you think they got so rich?

unpaid taxes
religious exemptions/PRIVILEGES

it's all about the money and imposing their beliefs, quite the opposite of what they are claiming, really

also all this electoral drama is just distraction from what's really going on
edit on 16-3-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: they're



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Why does your government even tolerate this sort of religious extremism?

Christofacists need to understand they cannot try and develop nuclear warheads in order to establish a global religious dictatorship.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Are you saying this guy is claiming a religious exemption from distributing BC to escape paying taxes???
edit on 16-3-2012 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I don't get this at all. People who believe in an imaginary friend can dictate health issues of people they hire? Does their religion somehow say "you shall thrust upon everyone else whatever you believe"?


From the lawsuit:

5. O’Brien contends that by requiring him to choose between conducting his business in
a manner consistent with his religion, or paying ruinous fines and penalties, the Mandate violates
his rights under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and violates the
Administrative Procedure Act.


This is a U.S. Constitution issue.

The "dictation" is coming from the U.S. Government.





Actually the religious issue the fact that he's forcing his belief on his employees. He's not being forced to personally use anything. The religious right... Taliban or any of the other Christian types are all the same... WRONG.

Oh yeah, there is no god. I have 12 years of catholic schooling in me; don't even start with me about the bible being true as I read it front to back many times as it was required. Each time it was goofier than the last.

Derek



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
This will be fun because there isn't a religious aspect here -- there is probably a hippas problem and a general privacy problem and a generalized class three idiot problem - but it will be good to see a trial case for this idiocy,.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
So the man is suing because he is being forced to do something against his beliefs...yet in the process wants to shape the insurance he provides based on his own beliefs and force it on employees?

This entire battle isn't about religion.

It's employer rights vs. employee rights.

IMO...this entire argument only proves that we need a public option.




edit on 16-3-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
So the man is suing because he is being forced to do something against his beliefs...yet in the process wants to shape the insurance he provides based on his own beliefs and force it on employees?

This entire battle isn't about religion.

It's employer rights vs. employee rights.

IMO...this entire argument only proves that we need a public option.




edit on 16-3-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)


Until a male gender pill is brought to market all your standing for is public financing of the blatant gender inequality in reproductive self determination.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



This is a U.S. Constitution issue.

The "dictation" is coming from the U.S. Government.


No, this is a FOX News/Rush Limbaugh issue.

"the pill" is prescribed for a lot of different medical reasons besides contraception.

Unfortunately the hardcore right wingers, are just using this as an excuse to shove their brand of religious zealotry down the throats of all Americans.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Hey, I'm not all for the healthcare bill, I'm just saying that this particular issue is total nonsense. You can't infringe on another persons rights just because you sign their check. That's all I'm saying. If said employer believes contraceptives are wrong, then don't use them. However, there are others that do use them. Even some that need them and this yahoo wants to deny them. It's just wrong.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Hey, I'm not all for the healthcare bill, I'm just saying that this particular issue is total nonsense. You can't infringe on another persons rights just because you sign their check. That's all I'm saying. If said employer believes contraceptives are wrong, then don't use them. However, there are others that do use them. Even some that need them and this yahoo wants to deny them. It's just wrong.


I fail to see where in the lawsuit that anyone is getting denied of anything


It seems to be about cost sharing ??

People can get the coverage they want by paying for it themselves.

But just the same,
something seems to have changed on the government levels ....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

unless I completely don't understand?




top topics



 
4

log in

join