Nos. 11-1057, 11-1058
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, EX REL. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in her official capacity, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANAND AFFIRMANCE IN PART AND REVERSAL IN PART
Interest of Amicus Curiae
The Family Research Council is a 501(c)3 nonprofit public-policy organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., that exists to develop and analyze governmental policies that affect families in the United States. Founded in 1983, FRC advocates legislative and regulatory enactments that protect and strengthen family rights and autonomy, and assists in legal challenges of statutes and administrative actions detrimental to family interests. FRC informs and represents the interests of 39 state organizations and over 500,000 citizens on a daily basis.
Various provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) are contrary to family values, family interests, and religious liberty. For example, there are specific provisions that will result in funding abortions under the precedent of at least one Circuit, either through Federal spending or through fees imposed upon employers and individuals. See Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Engler, 73 F.3d 634, 636 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that for statutes providing funding for medical services, executive or administrative orders denying the use of such funds for abortion are of no effect because only Congress can impose such limitations through statutory language).
Additional provisions in PPACA impair the ability of families to make medical decisions in consultation with their healthcare providers, by imposing mandates upon individuals limiting their healthcare choices, mandates upon employers that reduce the options they can extend to employees, mandates upon insurers that will increase the costs of premiums and thereby make insurance less affordable, and also by encumbering the decisionmaking of physicians. Moreover, other provisions discriminate between adherents of different faiths, by allowing a religious exception to the "Individual Mandate" for followers of certain religions, but excluding adherents of others.
These interests are thus central to FRC's organizational mission, and will only be fully addressed by PPACA being held unconstitutional in its entirety.