E. Tex. Baptist Univ. v. Sebelius

Decision Date27 December 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. H–12–3009.
Citation988 F.Supp.2d 743
PartiesEAST TEXAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

988 F.Supp.2d 743

EAST TEXAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Kathleen SEBELIUS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. H–12–3009.

United States District Court,
S.D. Texas,
Houston Division.

Dec. 27, 2013.






Validity Called into Doubt


Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, § 1001(a)(5), 42 U.S.C.A. § 300gg–13(a)(4); 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(b)(4).

[988 F.Supp.2d 746]

Eric Christopher Rassbach, Diana Marie Verm, Eric Shawn Baxter, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, James E. Zucker, Yetter Coleman LLP, Houston, TX, Reagan W. Simpson, Scott A. Keller, Yetter Coleman LLP, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs.


Jacek Pruski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Daniel David Hu, Office of the U.S. Attorneys Office, Houston, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge.

The Affordable Care Act mandates coverage for contraceptive services in group health plans that employers must provide their employees. Churches, nonprofit religious organizations, and for-profit corporations owned by deeply religious individuals challenged this mandate as offensive to their religious beliefs. The federal government responded. Recent regulations exempt “religious employers,” primarily churches, from the mandate; provide an accommodation for nonprofit religious organizations allowing them to avoid direct involvement in providing coverage or paying for contraceptive products or devices they find offensive to their faith; and maintains the mandate for for-profit employers, regardless of their owners' sensibilities.

One set of cases, filed by for-profit employers, is before the Supreme Court. 1 A

[988 F.Supp.2d 747]

second set of cases, filed by nonprofit religious organizations, includes this case. Both sets of cases present difficult arguments that reflect the pluralistic society we both celebrate and struggle to preserve and protect.

In this second set of cases, the nonprofit religious organizations contend that the accommodation violates vital protections provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Constitution, by requiring them to facilitate their employees' free access to emergency contraception or face crippling penalties. The government and an amicus respond that the accommodation sufficiently insulates the organizations from any religiously offensive conduct without stripping thousands of women from free access to emergency-contraceptive services that may be critical to avoiding unwanted pregnancies. The government and the amicus forcefully argue that an injunction extending the exemption to the plaintiffs would permit them to impose their religious beliefs on their employees who may not share those beliefs by making access to free emergency contraceptives more difficult.

Several district courts have already issued opinions, with inconsistent results.2 Because the issues are legal and the facts are essentially undisputed, this and other district court opinions are at most data points, chiefly important as necessary steps to the appellate courts.

Based on the pleadings, the motion for the preliminary injunction and response, the parties' submissions, the lengthy oral argument, and the governing law, this court finds that the plaintiffs and the intervenor have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This court preliminarily enjoins the enforcement of the mandate to cover

[988 F.Supp.2d 748]

emergency contraception against the plaintiffs and intervenor. The reasons are explained below.

I. Background

The plaintiffs, two universities affiliated with the Baptist Church, and the intervenor, a seminary affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, (together, the “plaintiffs”), believe as a matter of faith that life begins when an egg becomes fertilized. They also sincerely believe that the emergency contraceptives their group health-plan issuer or third-party administrator will have to pay for under the ACA's mandate cause abortions. In the plaintiffs' view, emergency-contraceptive products are “abortifacients.” The plaintiffs contend that the ACA's accommodation is infirm under the Constitution and RFRA because the accommodation requires them to take an action that triggers and facilitates their employees' free access to abortion-causing drugs, making the plaintiffs complicit in the taking of innocent life and causing them to violate their belief that they must protect the innocent human life that is a fertilized egg. Because both failing to comply with the accommodation's requirements and refusing to provide emergency-contraceptive group health-plan coverage would expose the plaintiffs to onerous financial penalties, they argue that the ACA's mandate and accommodation violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, and the Free Speech Clause.

The plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the mandate and partial summary judgment on their claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, and the Free Speech Clause. The government has cross-moved for summary judgment.

A. The Plaintiffs

The varieties of religious beliefs affect how the issue is presented. In some cases, the challenging organization is affiliated with a religion, such as the Catholic Church, that opposes all contraception, including pills designed to prevent an egg from becoming fertilized. The plaintiffs in this case are affiliated with Protestant churches that believe that life begins at conception. The plaintiffs are not opposed to all contraception methods, but they are opposed to some, including those that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Details about each of the parties are set out below.

1. East Texas Baptist University

In October 1912, the State of Texas chartered the College of Marshall, a two-year college in Marshall, Texas. (Docket Entry No. 70–1, Ex. A–1.) The College of Marshall registered its first class in 1917. ( Id.) In 1924, the Baptist General Convention of Texas assumed the college's debt. ( Id.) In 1944, the College of Marshall changed its name to East Texas Baptist College and “elevated” to a four-year institution. ( Id.) The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accredited East Texas Baptist College in 1957. ( Id.) In 1984, the school became East Texas Baptist University (“ETBU”). In 2013, ETBU serves “over 1,250 students in 30 undergraduate degree programs and 4 graduate degree programs.” (Docket Entry No. 70–1, Oliver Decl., at ¶ 7.)

ETBU is a nonprofit corporation affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas. (Docket Entry No. 70–1, Ex. A–1.) A 36–member Board of Trustees governs ETBU. ( Id.) The Baptist General Convention of Texas elects 19 board members; the ETBU Board elects the remaining 17. ( Id.) ETBU holds its property in trust for, and conducts its affairs based on, the policies

[988 F.Supp.2d 749]

that the 36–member Board establishes. ( Id.)

ETBU is a coeducational institution chartered as a “religious, arts and sciences and pre-professional studies institution of higher education.” ( Id.) ETBU commits itself to “Christian stewardship” and focuses on the “development of intellectual inquiry, social consciousness, wellness, skills for a contemporary society, global awareness, and Christian character, [because] these endeavors prepare students to serve humanity and the Kingdom of God.” ( Id.) ETBU believes that the “Christian faith provides the surest foundation for life,” and “employ[s a] Christian faculty who are dedicated to teaching, scholarship, advising, and service as they model the principles of the Christian faith. As a Baptist university, [ETBU is] committed to the integration of learning and Christian faith in the pursuit of truth.” ( Id.)

ETBU “seeks administrators, academic officers, faculty, and staff who have a personal relationship with Christ, who are familiar with truth as revealed in the Bible, who live out this truth in the presence of others, who can create an environment where Christ is lived out in the life of the individual, and who have the necessary knowledge, experience, and competence for the position.” ( Id.) In “their initial and continuing employment, administrators, faculty, and staff at [ETBU] are to profess a saving relationship with Jesus Christ and to exhibit a lifestyle that demonstrates that commitment.” ( Id.) ETBU “has about 227 full-time employees and 56 part-time employees” who profess these commitments. (Docket Entry 70–1, Oliver Decl., at ¶ 28).

Included in these commitments is a belief that “Scripture calls Christians to uphold the God-given worth of human beings, as the unique image-bearers of God, from conception to death.” ( Id. ¶ 16 (citing Genesis and Psalms)). Consistent with this belief, ETBU “condemns the taking of innocent human life ... and commands Christians to protect the weak and vulnerable.” ( Id. ¶ 18 (citing Exodus and Psalms)). ETBU follows the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Study, including the commandment to “speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.” ( Id. (quoting Ex. A–4)). ETBU “believes and teaches that abortion ends human life and is a sin.” ETBU contends that [it] is a violation of [its] teachings and religious beliefs to deliberately provide insurance coverage for, fund, sponsor, underwrite, or otherwise facilitate access to abortion-inducing drugs, abortion procedures, and related services.” ( Id. at ¶ 20). ETBU objects to the use of emergency contraception drugs, like Plan B and Ella, and to devices like copper IUDs, believing that those drugs and devices cause death to a fertilized embryo. ( Id. at ¶¶ 23–26).

Consistent with those beliefs, the ETBU is self insured and uses a third-party administrator, Mutual Assurance Administrators, Inc. to provide its employees with a Healthcare...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • La. Coll. v. Sebelius
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • 13 Agosto 2014
    ...Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth v. Sebelius, No. 4:12–cv–314 (N.D.Tex. Dec. 31, 2013) (ECF Doc. 99); E. Tex. Baptist Univ. v. Sebelius, 988 F.Supp.2d 743 (S.D.Tex.2013) (“ETBU ”). On these facts, we join with the reasoning of our sister concur in concluding that the challenged regulati......
  • Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 17 Septiembre 2015
    ...735 F.3d 654, 686–87 (7th Cir.2013) ; Univ. of Notre Dame, 786 F.3d at 630 (Flaum, J., dissenting); E. Tex. Baptist Univ. v. Sebelius, 988 F.Supp.2d 743, 770 (S.D.Tex.2013), rev'd on other grounds, 793 F.3d 449.CNS and HCC also propose that the government could make contraceptives available......
  • Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc. v. Sebelius
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 27 Diciembre 2013
    ...While the other courts have found the accommodation to pose a substantial burden. See East Texas Baptist Univ. v. Sebelius, 988 F.Supp.2d 743, No. 4:12–cv–3009, 2013 WL 6838893 (S.D.Tex. Dec. 27, 2013); Geneva College v. Sebelius, 988 F.Supp.2d 511, No. 12–0207, 2013 WL 6835094 (W.D.Pa. Dec......
  • Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Burwell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 30 Junio 2014
    ...York, 987 F.Supp.2d at 255–56 (citing Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 686 (7th Cir.2013) ). See also, East Texas Baptist Univ. v. Sebelius, 988 F.Supp.2d 743, 770–71 (S.D.Tex.2013). Indeed, the Supreme Court has observed that the most straightforward way for the Government to achieve its g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT