FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
News from Progress Michigan
July 11, 2014
Contact: Sam Inglot, 616-916-0574, email@example.com
Autocam Doesn’t Want to Follow the Law, But Will Happily Take Tax Handouts
Progress Michigan calls for lawmakers to take action to deny tax handouts to companies that fight basic health care coverage for female employees
MICHIGAN — A manufacturing company in West Michigan, Autocam, who fought against government requirements that they provide basic reproductive health care coverage to its female employees, took millions in taxpayer dollars from the government.
The owner of Autocam, John Kennedy, recently praised the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that corporations can force their religious beliefs on their employees by denying basic reproductive health coverage for female employees. In 1998, Autocam was the recipient of $8.8 million, 20-year tax abatement, courtesy of Michigan taxpayers. The abatement was amended in 2010 and the city of Kentwood approved further tax abatements as well.
“There is something hypocritical about relying on taxpayers, including those that don’t share your religious beliefs, to help run your business and make it successful while trying to opt-out of contraception coverage,” said Hugh Madden, communications director of Progress Michigan. “Taxpayers should not be forced to support corporations that claim to be religious-based with their money.”
This week, Governor Rick Snyder campaigned at Autocam without mentioning the fact that Autocam opposes allowing its employees to make their own health care decisions or the fact that Autocam’s success stems from tax credits put in place by his predecessors.
“Governor Snyder needs to tell Michigan women where he stands on the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision,” Madden continued. “Furthermore, companies that are not willing to abide by the same rules as others should not be eligible for special tax breaks. The Governor should use his executive power to stop any further tax credits of this nature and the legislature should codify these taxpayer protections into law.”