[JURIST] Right to Life of Michigan [advocacy website] filed a federal lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in the US District Court in the Western District of Michigan [official website] on Monday over provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [text; JURIST backgrounder] that require insurance companies to provide sterilization, contraceptives and morning after pills. Right to Life has 33 employees, and has been offering them insurance without providing coverage [Michigan Live report] for contraception or abortion. They argue that this provision of the PPACA is unconstitutional because to provide this coverage violates their religious beliefs and freedoms. They have named Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius [official profile] and others as defendants in the case. Earlier this week a federal appeals court found that the mandate was an unconstitutional [JURIST report] violation of the Free Exercise clause.

The PPACA has been subject to various challenges. In October the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected [JURIST report] claims by Eden Foods, Inc. that it should be exempt on religious grounds from the contraception mandate of the PPACA. Earlier in October a federal judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia declined [JURIST report] to issue a preliminary injunction against the insurance subsidies provision of the PPACA. Also in October Hobby Lobby filed a brief [JURIST report] urging the US Supreme Court to review its case regarding the constitutionality of the PPACA birth-control mandate. In July the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld [JURIST report] Congress’ authority to require larger employers to provide adequate health insurance for their employees or pay a fine. Liberty University had brought the challenge and the US Supreme Court remanded [JURIST report] the case to the Fourth Circuit that in turn determined that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. In June 2012 the Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that the PPACA does not violate the constitution in a case that focused on the “individual mandate” provision of the act, which requires every person, with some exceptions for religious and other reasons, to purchase some form of health insurance by January 1, 2014, or be subject to a fee equal to either a percent of that individual’s income or flat rate of $695.