This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-obamacare-birth-control-mandate/2020/07/08/0b38a352-c123-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_homepage
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court says employers may opt out of Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate over religious, moral objections | Supreme Court says employers may opt out of Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate over religious, moral objections |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration may allow employers and universities to opt out of the Affordable Care Act requirement to provide contraceptive care because of religious or moral objections. | The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration may allow employers and universities to opt out of the Affordable Care Act requirement to provide contraceptive care because of religious or moral objections. |
| The issue has been at the heart of an intense legal battle for nine years, first with the Obama administration sparring with religious organizations who said offering contraceptive care to their employees violated their beliefs, and then with the Trump administration broadening the Obama administration’s exemption, angering women’s groups, health organizations and Democratic-led states. | |
| Wednesday’s decision greatly expands the ability of employers to claim the exemption, and the government estimates that it could mean that 70,000 to 126,000 women could lose access to cost-free birth control. | Wednesday’s decision greatly expands the ability of employers to claim the exemption, and the government estimates that it could mean that 70,000 to 126,000 women could lose access to cost-free birth control. |
| “We hold that the [administration] had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh. | “We hold that the [administration] had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh. |
| The decision sent the case back to a lower court and instructed it to dissolve a nationwide injunction that had kept the exception from being implemented. | The decision sent the case back to a lower court and instructed it to dissolve a nationwide injunction that had kept the exception from being implemented. |
| Liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer agreed with the court’s conservatives that the administration had the right to create an exemption, but they said lower courts should examine whether the decision to create this one was arbitrary and capricious. | Liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer agreed with the court’s conservatives that the administration had the right to create an exemption, but they said lower courts should examine whether the decision to create this one was arbitrary and capricious. |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a blistering dissent, in which she said her colleagues had gone too far to appease religious conservatives. | Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a blistering dissent, in which she said her colleagues had gone too far to appease religious conservatives. |
| [Supreme Court struggles with Trump administration’s limits on birth control coverage] | [Supreme Court struggles with Trump administration’s limits on birth control coverage] |
| Until now, “this Court has taken a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote in a brief joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. | Until now, “this Court has taken a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote in a brief joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. |
| “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.” | “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.” |
| Reproductive rights groups were alarmed by the decision. | Reproductive rights groups were alarmed by the decision. |
| NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue released the following statement: | NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue released the following statement: |
| “The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump administration to put control over people’s birth control in the hands of the whims of their bosses and employers is deplorable. This decision just further exposes that ultimately, the Radical Right is really about controlling women and our lives with no eye towards equality or public health and well being.” | “The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump administration to put control over people’s birth control in the hands of the whims of their bosses and employers is deplorable. This decision just further exposes that ultimately, the Radical Right is really about controlling women and our lives with no eye towards equality or public health and well being.” |
| Religious groups said the legal battles should stop. | Religious groups said the legal battles should stop. |
| In addition to the Trump administration, the Little Sisters of the Poor defended the rules. The order of nuns, which runs homes for the elderly and employs about 2,700 people, points out that the government provided exemptions from the beginning for religious organizations such as churches. They say the accommodation provision violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law that says the government must have a compelling reason for programs that substantially burden religious beliefs. | In addition to the Trump administration, the Little Sisters of the Poor defended the rules. The order of nuns, which runs homes for the elderly and employs about 2,700 people, points out that the government provided exemptions from the beginning for religious organizations such as churches. They say the accommodation provision violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law that says the government must have a compelling reason for programs that substantially burden religious beliefs. |
| “We are overjoyed that, once again, the Supreme Court has protected our right to serve the elderly without violating our faith,” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor, whose employees work in the group’s facilities. “Our life’s work and great joy is serving the elderly poor and we are so grateful that the contraceptive mandate will no longer steal our attention from our calling.” | “We are overjoyed that, once again, the Supreme Court has protected our right to serve the elderly without violating our faith,” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor, whose employees work in the group’s facilities. “Our life’s work and great joy is serving the elderly poor and we are so grateful that the contraceptive mandate will no longer steal our attention from our calling.” |
| White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement that the decision was “a big win for religious freedom and freedom of conscience.” | White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement that the decision was “a big win for religious freedom and freedom of conscience.” |
| “Since Day One, the Trump Administration has sought to lift burdens on religious exercise for people of all faiths,” she said, adding the administration would work to allow “women who lack access to contraceptive coverage because of their employer’s religious beliefs or moral convictions to more easily access such care” through federal programs. | “Since Day One, the Trump Administration has sought to lift burdens on religious exercise for people of all faiths,” she said, adding the administration would work to allow “women who lack access to contraceptive coverage because of their employer’s religious beliefs or moral convictions to more easily access such care” through federal programs. |
| At issue is the Trump administration’s decision in 2018 to expand the types of organizations that could opt out of providing cost-free access to birth control and the extent to which the government should create exemptions to the law for religious groups and nonreligious employers with moral and religious objections. | At issue is the Trump administration’s decision in 2018 to expand the types of organizations that could opt out of providing cost-free access to birth control and the extent to which the government should create exemptions to the law for religious groups and nonreligious employers with moral and religious objections. |
| The Obama administration had narrower exceptions for churches and other houses of worship, and it created a system of “accommodations,” or workarounds, for religiously affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities. Those accommodations would provide the contraceptive care but avoid having the objecting organizations directly cover the cost. | The Obama administration had narrower exceptions for churches and other houses of worship, and it created a system of “accommodations,” or workarounds, for religiously affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities. Those accommodations would provide the contraceptive care but avoid having the objecting organizations directly cover the cost. |
| Under the Trump administration rules, the employers able to opt out include essentially all nongovernmental workplaces, from small businesses to Fortune 500 companies. And the employer has the choice of whether to permit the workaround. | Under the Trump administration rules, the employers able to opt out include essentially all nongovernmental workplaces, from small businesses to Fortune 500 companies. And the employer has the choice of whether to permit the workaround. |
| The states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey initially challenged the rules, noting that when women lose coverage from their employers, they seek state-funded programs and services. Last summer, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit blocked the rules from taking effect nationwide. The court said the administration probably lacked authority to issue such broad exemptions and did not comply with requirements to provide notice and allow public comment on the rules. | The states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey initially challenged the rules, noting that when women lose coverage from their employers, they seek state-funded programs and services. Last summer, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit blocked the rules from taking effect nationwide. The court said the administration probably lacked authority to issue such broad exemptions and did not comply with requirements to provide notice and allow public comment on the rules. |
| [Supreme Court sides with employers over birth control mandate] | [Supreme Court sides with employers over birth control mandate] |
| In 2014, the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores ruled that certain closely held businesses do not have to offer birth control coverage that conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs. But the court did not take a position on the accommodation provision, which requires objecting organizations to notify the government. | In 2014, the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores ruled that certain closely held businesses do not have to offer birth control coverage that conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs. But the court did not take a position on the accommodation provision, which requires objecting organizations to notify the government. |
| Two years later, a shorthanded court of eight justices declined to rule on the merits of another challenge to the contraceptive-coverage requirement and sent the case back to the lower courts. The unusual, unsigned decision was viewed as a punt by a court then equally divided along ideological lines. | Two years later, a shorthanded court of eight justices declined to rule on the merits of another challenge to the contraceptive-coverage requirement and sent the case back to the lower courts. The unusual, unsigned decision was viewed as a punt by a court then equally divided along ideological lines. |
| The cases are Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania. | The cases are Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania. |