Freedom of speech, religion and assembly of the people is protected under the First Amendment — but what about freedom of healthcare requirements?
A voice in the uproar against the pro-abortion HHS mandate belongs to Frank O’Brien and O’Brien Industries. O’Brian runs his small business in Missouri in accordance with the Catholic religion and believes that the mandate’s requirements impede on his freedom of religion. Since Catholicism does not support contraceptives, O’brian recently argued that he should not be required to indulge in any required healthcare plan for his employees that would contribute to any related funding of it.
Unfortunately for O’Brian, Judge Judge Carol E. Jackson dismissed the case in it’s entirety late last Friday.
“The challenged regulations do not demand that plaintiffs alter their behavior in a manner that will directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. Frank O’Brien is not prevented from keeping the Sabbath, from providing a religious upbringing for his children, or from participating in a religious ritual such as communion. Instead, plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives” said Judge Jackson, according to LifeNews.com.
Judge Jackson then went on to argue that the only way the mandate could offend O’Brian was if family members or employees independently sought the healthcare benefits and that either of the parties’ mentioned could use their own salary on benefits that might conflict with the personal preferences of the owner, so it was a moot point.
For now, it seems that the ethical boundaries of religious freedoms will plague federal district courts and they will have to take the lawsuits on one at a time.
Leave a response