Rep Wieland's ACA suit could force insurance companies to track customers’ views on religion and sex
ThinkProgress
Father Who Sued To Keep His Adult Daughters From Getting Birth Control Wins Key Court Fight
Missouri state Rep. Paul Joseph Wieland (R) does not want his daughters’ health plan to cover birth control — even though two of those daughters are adults. So he and his wife sued the Obama administration. Though this lawsuit was rejected on jurisdictional grounds by a federal trial court, a panel of three appellate judges reinstated the suit on Monday. Should the Wielands ultimately prevail in their effort to deny birth control coverage to their daughters, the decision could have implications far beyond the Wieland family, potentially forcing insurance companies to maintain elaborate records to track many of their customers’ views on religion and sexual morality.
Wieland v. Department of Health and Human Services seeks to expand the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed many private businesses to ignore federal rules requiring them to include birth control in their employee’s health plans if the business’ owners object to contraception on religious grounds. The Wielands claim that a similar rule should apply in their case. Because they claim that they “cannot provide, fund or in any way be a participant in the provision of health care coverage” that includes birth control “without violating their sincerely-held religious beliefs,” they argue that they should be given a special health plan that does not include contraceptive care.
... The Wielands are helped by the fact that Missouri did offer the special contraception-free plan they seek until 2013, when a court order instructed the state to stop offering this plan in order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. They can also point to Hobby Lobby itself, which established that religious objectors may wield those objections to diminish the rights of third parties. According to the Wielands’ attorney, the couple “stand(s) in the same shoes” as Hobby Lobby, and Hobby Lobby’s “employees are to Hobby Lobby what the daughters are to Paul and Teresa Wieland.
Hobby Lobby, however, rested on the Court’s conclusion that the federal birth control rules at issue in that case did not use the “least restrictive means” of furthering the government’s interest in protecting women’s health. As the Justice Department explained in its arguments in Wieland, it’s not at all clear that the same thing is true in this case.
More
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/21/3682921/father-sued-keep-adult-daughters-getting-birth-control-wins-key-court-fight/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&elqTrack=true&elqTrackId=3da84548a8b54292823aef09e2ecdb80&elqaid=26481&elqat=1
= new reply since forum marked as read
Really Sucks to be their daughters, but parents don'the actually owe their grown children anything.
Might just bite them in the ass later, though. 
