Missouri senator, wife win contraceptive insurance suit

July 22--ST. LOUIS -- A federal judge here has sided with a Missouri state senator in his fight to opt out of family birth-control coverage through the state health insurance plan.

In a ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jean C. Hamilton said the federal government cannot compel Sen. Paul Wieland, R-Imperial, and his wife to pay for group health insurance that includes contraception coverage they consider religiously objectionable. Paul and Teresa Wieland are Catholics and the parents of three daughters, ages 15 to 22.

The Wielands launched their opposition to the rule in 2013, when he was a member of the House. They argued that the contraceptive benefit required by the Affordable Care Act violates their religious beliefs.

"We're excited," Wieland said Friday. "We know the government probably won't agree, but this is a victory along the way. The government is trying to force me to buy a product that I consider morally offensive."

Nicole Navas, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said in a statement, "The department is reviewing the order and considering our options."

Timothy Belz, a lawyer in Clayton who represents the Wielands, said Hamilton's order technically applies only to his clients and the state insurance plan. But Belz said it had "larger implications" because other families with similar religious obligations could cite it.

"It has precedential value," said Belz. "Other families can say, 'Look, give me a contraceptive-free policy or I will go to court with the Wieland opinion.'"

Belz is handling the case for the Thomas More Society, a conservative public-interest law firm in Chicago that is active in religious-liberty cases. Catholic doctrine opposes general use of contraception products and considers some of them to be abortion-inducing.

The Affordable Care Act requires most employers with more than 50 full-time workers to provide insurance coverage that includes access to contraception. The Wielands cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

They also pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2014 in the Hobby Lobby case, which said businesses privately owned by people opposed to contraception on religious grounds don't have to provide it. The Wielands argued that a family is no different from a small business in this matter.

Federal lawyers argued that the mandate was not a "substantial burden" on the Wielands because they simply could decline to use it, and that the mandate applies to health plans, not an individual family. But Hamilton wrote the argument would mean the Wielands "must either maintain a health insurance plan that includes contraceptive coverage, in violation of their sincerely held religious believes, or they can forgo healthcare altogether ..."

Wieland said he would continue to keep his family in the health plan provided for legislators. He said Catholic priests had assured him that, "As long as I am fighting this, I'm not in error spiritually."

Kurt Erickson --573-556-6181

@KurtEricksonPD on Twitter

[email protected]

___

(c)2016 the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Visit the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at www.stltoday.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.