Supreme Court Issues Stay in Obamacare Birth-Control Case

A nonprofit nursing home run by nuns will not have to pay a penalty for refusing to provide contraception coverage while a court case is pending.

A woman holds prescription contraceptives June 13, 2001 in Seattle, Washington. A federal judge ruled on that Bartell Drug Co., which operates 50 drug stores in the Seattle region must pay for prescription contraceptives, like the birth control pills shown here, for its female employees. The class-action suit was brought against Bartell Drug Co. by Jennifer Erickson, a 27 year-old pharmacist with the company, and may lead employers across the country to do the same.
National Journal
Clara Ritger
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Clara Ritger
Jan. 24, 2014, 12:14 p.m.

The Su­preme Court on Fri­day gran­ted a tem­por­ary ex­emp­tion from Obama­care’s con­tra­cep­tion man­date to a re­li­gious non­profit or­gan­iz­a­tion that sued the ad­min­is­tra­tion on the grounds that the man­date vi­ol­ated its re­li­gious be­liefs.

The case of Little Sis­ters of the Poor, a nurs­ing home run by Cath­ol­ic nuns, will re­turn to the 10th U.S. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals in Den­ver for a rul­ing on the non­profit’s suit. But thanks to Fri­day’s rul­ing, Little Sis­ters will not be pen­al­ized for not cov­er­ing con­tra­cep­tion for its em­ploy­ees while the case is pending.

Justice So­nia So­to­may­or re­ferred the case to the full Court fol­low­ing her de­cision on New Year’s Eve to grant Little Sis­ters a pre­lim­in­ary in­junc­tion. Had So­to­may­or not gran­ted the re­prieve be­fore Jan. 1 — when the man­date took ef­fect — Little Sis­ters would have had to pay a pen­alty or com­ply.

“Com­pli­ance” with Obama­care’s man­date, however, does not mean Little Sis­ters would have had to pay for its em­ploy­ees’ con­tra­cep­tion.

As stated un­der the law, re­li­gious or­gan­iz­a­tions are ex­empt from the man­date re­quir­ing em­ploy­ers to in­clude con­tra­cept­ive ser­vices in em­ploy­ees’ health plans.

Be­cause Little Sis­ters is a re­li­giously af­fil­i­ated or­gan­iz­a­tion — rather than a re­li­gious or­gan­iz­a­tion, such as a church — it did not qual­i­fy for the ex­emp­tion.

In­stead, it was covered un­der a sep­ar­ate, com­prom­ise reg­u­la­tion the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion is­sued al­most one year ago. Un­der that deal, Little Sis­ters — and thou­sands of oth­er sim­il­arly clas­si­fied or­gan­iz­a­tions who ob­jec­ted to the man­date on grounds that it vi­ol­ated their re­li­gious liberty — would have to sign a form in­dic­at­ing that they ob­jec­ted to provid­ing con­tra­cep­tion on re­li­gious grounds. In ex­change, they would not be pen­al­ized for fail­ing to meet the man­date, be­cause the in­sur­ance com­pany would in­stead pay for the con­tra­cept­ive cov­er­age for their em­ploy­ees.

Little Sis­ters ar­gues that by sign­ing the form that “trig­gers the start of cov­er­age,” they are com­pli­cit in the act of provid­ing con­tra­cep­tion. “In good con­science, they can­not do that,” wrote the law­yers for the Beck­et Fund for Re­li­gious Liberty, the firm rep­res­ent­ing Little Sis­ters. “So the ‘ac­com­mod­a­tion’ still vi­ol­ates their re­li­gious be­liefs.”

In Decem­ber, the Den­ver ap­pel­late court de­clined to grant a pre­lim­in­ary in­junc­tion, judging that the Little Sis­ters “reads too much in­to the lan­guage of the form, which re­quires only that the in­di­vidu­al sign­ing it cer­ti­fy that her or­gan­iz­a­tion op­poses provid­ing con­tra­cept­ive cov­er­age.”

After Little Sis­ters filed an emer­gency ap­peal to the Su­preme Court, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion had hoped the justices would agree, but its de­feat Fri­day may only be tem­por­ary: The Court stressed it was not rul­ing on the mer­its of Little Sis­ters’ case in is­su­ing the de­cision to con­tin­ue the stay.

While the Su­preme Court won’t be tak­ing up the Little Sis­ters case, it is sched­uled to re­view a claim by for-profit com­pan­ies with re­li­gious ob­jec­tions to the con­tra­cep­tion man­date on March 25, a de­bate which will re­quire the Court to re­view wheth­er cor­por­a­tions First Amend­ment rights — ex­ten­ded through the Cit­izens United de­cision — in­clude re­li­gious rights.

What We're Following See More »
PLENTY OF MISTAKES IN COVERT TESTS
Report: U.S. Ill-Equipped to Detect Dirty Bomb
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

A DHS report "found gaping holes in domestic nuclear detection and defense capabilities and massive failures during covert testing." A team put in place to assess our readiness capabilities found significant issues in detecting dangerous radioactive and nuclear materials, failing to do so in 30 percent of covert tests conducted over the course of the year. In far too many cases, the person operating the detection device had no idea how to use it. And when the operator did get a hit, he or she relayed sensitive information over unsecured open radio channels."

Source:
WON’T INTERFERE IN STRUCTURING NSC OFFICE
White House to Give McMaster Carte Blanche
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
RESTROOM ISSUES RETURN
Trump To Rescind Trans Protections
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Donald Trump is planning to reverse an Obama-era order requiring that schools allow students to use the bathroom that coincides with their gender identity. Trump "has green-lighted the plan for the Justice Department and Education Department to send a “Dear Colleague” letter to schools rescinding the guidance." A case is going before the Supreme Court on March 28 in which Gavin Grimm, a transgender high school student, is suing his high school for forbidding him to use the men's room.

Source:
NAIVE, RISK TAKER
Russia Compiling Dossier on Trump’s Mind
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Retired Russian diplomats and members of Vladimir Putin's staff are compiling a dossier "on Donald Trump's psychological makeup" for the Russian leader. "Among its preliminary conclusions is that the new American leader is a risk-taker who can be naïve, according to a senior Kremlin adviser."

Source:
“HORRIBLE” AND “PAINFUL”
Trump Addresses Threats On Jewish Community Centers
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login