TribLIVE

| State


 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Judge rejects Pa. firm's health care law challenge

About The Tribune-Review
The Tribune-Review can be reached via e-mail or at 412-321-6460.
Contact Us | Video | Photo Reprints

Daily Photo Galleries


By The Associated Press

Published: Sunday, Jan. 13, 2013, 9:42 p.m.

PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge has rejected the argument of the Mennonite owners of a central Pennsylvania furniture manufacturing company that new health care requirements that they pay for employees' contraceptive services violate their free speech and religion rights.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg on Friday rejected a preliminary injunction sought by the owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., saying Norman Hahn and his family were unlikely to prevail in their case. He said they had not proven that complying with the new health care law amounted to a “substantial burden” on their religious rights.

Attorney Charles W. Proctor III told The Philadelphia Inquirer that the Hahns plan to appeal.

“We think it's well thought out,” attorney Charles W. Proctor III said of the decision. “We just don't agree with it.”

Conestoga's health plan excludes coverage for contraceptives and drugs used to abort a pregnancy, citing Mennonite Church teaching that terminating a fertilized embryo “is an intrinsic evil and a sin against God.” They said complying with the health care law's requirement to pay for contraceptive services and especially abortifacients would violate their religion, and disobeying it would subject them to crippling fines.

The judge ruled the company did not qualify for an exception as a religious employer, since it is a for-profit company with no formal ties to a church or other religious group. He said he found no “historical support for the proposition that a secular, for-profit corporation possesses the right to free exercise of religion,” and declined to make what he called “the significant leap” that the plaintiffs were seeking “without clear guidance from Congress or the Supreme Court.”

 

 
 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Pennsylvania

  1. Tobacco companies expected to contest Pennsylvania’s settlement on payments
  2. Dog wardens will canvass state for license compliance
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.