Missouri lawmaker sues to personally exempt his family from the contraception mandate

Rep. Wieland explains, “I see abortion-inducing drugs as intrinsically evil, and I cannot in good conscience preach one thing to my kids and then just go with the flow on our insurance. This is a moral conundrum for me. Do I just cancel the coverage and put my family at risk? I don’t believe in what the government is doing.”

Wiedland’s “moral conundrum” seems to be a partially a factual one. Emergency contraception, which is a form of birth control, is covered under the mandate. But “abortion-inducing drugs” are not. (Many private insurance plans do cover abortion services because it’s smart policy–although state legislatures are doing their damndest to ban coverage of abortion in their state exchanges.) And, of course, the logical alternative to canceling his coverage and putting his family at risk is to simply refrain from using the birth control that’s now available without a co-pay. Talk about an easy fix. But I’m guessing Wiedland isn’t actually looking for a solution to this conundrum. 

While there’s been tons of legal challenges to the mandate, the Weidlands’ may be the first by individuals seeking exemption from a group plan. But in a previous lawsuit brought by an employer , the judge ruled that the right to religious belief “is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others.” (Ya don’t say!) So perhaps this case will come down to whether Weidland and his wife have a right to force their beliefs on their three daughters, who are also covered by the plan. Here’s hoping their right to keep themselves safe from unintended pregnancies is protected.

 Image via.