The rule would allow “an employer with a sincerely held moral conviction that women do not have a place in the workplace to simply stop providing contraceptive coverage.”. “Rather, it delegated to the agencies the discretion to decide whether or not to cover it in the first place.”. According to the administration, the religious freedom of employers would be unconstitutionally trampled upon unless they’re exempted from the requirement. “The impending coronavirus-driven recession will make contraceptive coverage all the more critical as people become even more sensitive to cost constraints.”.

This accommodation was extended to some for-profit corporations as a result of a 2014 case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Much of Wednesday’s hearing centered on whether the Trump administration had the legal authority to expand the exemption under the ACA and another federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Kavanaugh suggested that each administration should be free to use its discretion to decide how birth control should be covered since Congress didn’t lay out any particular requirement in the main text of the ACA. The ongoing dispute bounced around in the courts until the spring of 2017, when the Trump administration announced that it would fix things — with a clear indication that it would endeavor to give the objectors exactly what they wanted: a way to disregard the birth control mandate. “Before the ACA, women spent between 30 percent and 44 percent of their out-of-pocket health costs just on contraception,” the NWLC brief reads.

So, even though the Little Sisters were arguing before the Supreme Court last week as though they had some beef to settle, they aren’t at all impacted by the ongoing legal dispute, a fact that Michael Fischer, Pennsylvania’s chief deputy attorney general, pointed out to Justice Sonia Sotomayor. During oral arguments on May 6, before a U.S. Supreme Court working remotely amid the coronavirus crisis, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had one question on her mind: What about the women? The Obama administration exempted houses of worship and provided a compromise for other religious nonprofits so that they didn’t have to offer coverage but employees could still get contraceptives. The Women’s Health Amendment specifically extended the mandate to a suite of reproductive health services, including access to all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives. “Denying employees and students coverage for birth control will limit their ability to decide whether and when to have a family and make other decisions about their futures. How many covert wars, miscarriages of justice, and dystopian technologies would remain hidden if our reporters weren’t on the beat? Which brings us back to Ginsburg’s question, aimed at each of the lawyers before the court: “You have just tossed entirely to the wind what Congress thought was essential, that is, that women be provided these … services, with no hassle, no cost to them,” she posited to Francisco. Today is National Voter Registration Day! on about your day, ask yourself: How likely is it that the story you just read would have been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn’t done it?

Reaction to the launch of a new human rights groups shows how Saudi Arabia’s network of funding and influence will protects its interests. “It not only allows people to plan and space their pregnancies in a way that is best for their health and their families, but also helps manage a variety of health conditions.”. In 2013, the mandate saved women more than $1.4 billion in out-of-pocket expenses for birth control pills. “The Departments’ many faulty assumptions result in a grievous failure to capture the full scale and scope of harm.”, The NWLC notes that the government’s assertion that birth control is widely available is misleading at best since access can be cost-prohibitive, particularly for young people, people of color, and those with low incomes — part of the reason the mandate was developed in the first place.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated from a Maryland hospital where she is currently being treated for an infection caused by a gallstone. At issue is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires employer-provided health insurance to include coverage for birth control without a copay. Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? The mandate has been credited with significantly reducing birth control costs across the country. And yet it sits at the heart of a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that women be provided no-cost contraceptives — a provision that provides birth control access to millions of women. Some of the justices appeared frustrated that the two sides have been unable to come to a compromise. And it will exacerbate existing inequalities, falling hardest on people with the fewest resources and people of color.”. “This fight is not over.”. Nonetheless, from the start, churches were exempt from having to provide the coverage. The Trump administration and the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns, appealed. Indeed, just two justices — Ginsburg and Sotomayor — specifically mentioned the moral objection rule, and only one lawyer, Fischer, tried to focus the justices’ attention on it.

Nearly all women use contraception at some point in their lives. The states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the rules, arguing that they would have to cover the cost of birth control for people who lost coverage. New Arab Pro-Democracy Group Founded by Jamal Khashoggi Faces an Uphill Battle in D.C. Trump Campaign Looks to Make Good On Poll-Watching Threat in Philadelphia, Crumbling Case Against Assange Shows Weakness of “Hacking” Charges Related to Whistleblowing, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, always exempt from providing the coverage. The moral exemption “does nothing to circumscribe what types of convictions may be used to invoke the exemption, nor does it have any mechanism to permit oversight,” the brief reads. Supreme Court Appears Divided In Critical Birth Control Case. Tap here to turn on desktop notifications to get the news sent straight to you. We made it easy for you to exercise your right to vote! The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday during arguments in a major case pitting women’s access to free contraceptive care against employers’ claims of religious liberty.

Among the groundbreaking achievements of the Affordable Care Act was that it required basic health services to be provided at no cost. The current case centers on rules issued after President Donald Trump took office that would allow almost any employer to opt out of providing birth control coverage by citing religious or moral objections.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer seemed frustrated by the arguments and in search of some middle ground. For starters, their insurance is covered by a “church plan,” which was always exempt from providing the coverage. Consider what the world of media would look like without The Intercept. The Little Sisters may not have a legal role, but they do provide a sympathetic narrative with which to rally support for the broader rule changes.

Indeed, a main thrust of the government’s argument is that Congress didn’t require birth control coverage specifically, only that women’s health services be provided — Congress directed the health agency to come up with the list of essential services. Joining is simple and doesn’t need to cost a lot: You can become a sustaining member for as little as $3 or $5 a month.

“Is it really the case that there is no way to resolve those differences?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point. employers with religious or moral objections to deny women access to free birth control coverage. Ginsburg said the Trump administration’s decision to weaken the mandate “tossed to the wind entirely Congress’ instruction, which is that women need and shall have seamless, no cost, comprehensive coverage.”.