Home | News | ACLJ Asks Federal Court To Block HHS Mandate For St. Louis Company

ACLJ Asks Federal Court To Block HHS Mandate For St. Louis Company

By
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

 

Washington, DC (WorkersCompensation.com) - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life legal organization that focuses on constitutional law, today urged a federal court to grant a preliminary injunction which would halt the enforcement of a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that violates the religious beliefs of a Missouri business owner. The ACLJ filed a federal lawsuit in March against the HHS challenging the mandate, which requires employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that include coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The ACLJ represents Frank R. O'Brien and O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC (OIH) - a holding company based in St. Louis, Missouri. O'Brien is chairman of OIH which operates a number of businesses that explore, mine, and process refractory and ceramic raw materials, with its products going to more than 40 countries. The company faces a January 1, 2013 deadline to have a new health care policy in place for his 87 employees.

"We're asking the Court to intervene right now because in a very short time our client, Frank O'Brien, will be faced with a choice no government has the right to impose on him: abandon his business, or abandon his beliefs," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ who is representing O'Brien. "The HHS mandate is an unprecedented attack on the religious liberty of millions of Americans. It's a clear violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment. We are asking the Court to intervene and enjoin the government from continuing to suppress the liberty of Frank O'Brien and his company to run their business in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs."

In its motion asking the court to grant a preliminary injunction in the case, the ACLJ contends that O'Brien is likely to succeed on the merits of the lawsuit and urges the court to grant the business an exemption to the mandate while the case is litigated.

As Manion put it: "The same government that wants to coerce O'Brien into violating his beliefs is, at the same, exempting millions of other employers from complying with the mandate. This is not only unfair but unconstitutional as well."

"The government has no right to decide which religious believers are 'religious' enough to qualify for an exemption from the HHS mandate. Our constitution and laws do not give HHS Secretary Sebelius or any other official the power to start handing out 'Seals of Government-Approved Godliness'."

O'Brien, a Catholic, says his religious beliefs provide the framework for the operation of his businesses. The company website states the OIH mission "is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society." OIH's statement of the company's values begins with the following: "Integrity. Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone's personal belief system."

Calling the mandate a "constitutional and statutory train wreck" – the ACLJ urges the court to grant preliminary injunctive relief "in order to allow O'Brien and OIH to be able to run their business in a manner consistent with the religious values and beliefs that have shaped the company from its start."

The motion requesting the preliminary injunction is posted here. The federal lawsuit filed in March is available here.

The lawsuit names as defendants, the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Sebelius; the Department of the Treasury and Secretary Geithner; and the Department of Labor and Secretary Solis. The ACLJ is being assisted in this lawsuit by the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy, a Chicago-based educational and advocacy group.

Led by ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C. and is online at www.aclj.org.

 

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (2 posted)

avatar
M Thoeni 08/23/2012 17:16:14
Constitutional freedom of religion is not a one way law, it also guarantees freedom from religion. The business owner is asking the Court to force his religious beliefs on the employees of his company.
avatar
John the Baptist 08/24/2012 06:58:38
Thoeni's comment is ludicrous. The constitution only guarantees freedom of religion. It makes absolutely no mention of "freedom from religion". That is a liberal construct being foisted on us by people insistent in forcing their particular beliefs on others. The hypocrisy of that aside, I would mention our founding fathers referenced God twice in our Declaration of Independence.

Of course, it is only because the man is a Christian is this an issue. Had he been Muslim or something else, no one would be forcing him to violate his religious tenets.

Apparently Thoeni would happily violate this mans religious rights in the name of what they perceive to be his employees employment rights. His employees have the right to work anywhere they want, but his right to honor his religion is expressly protected by our constitution. His employees have the right to work elsewhere.
total: 1 | displaying: 1 - 1

Post your comment

  • Bold
  • Italic
  • Underline
  • Quote

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Captcha
  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Get News & Blogs Updated In Real Time Via Twitter

Get Our Free Newsletter

Join 10,000+ of your peers! Get our latest WorkersCompensation.com articles delivered to your email inbox for free

Tagged as:

No tags for this article

Rate this article

0




Powered by Vivvo CMS v4.7