Supreme Court Review of Obamacare’s Contraception Mandate Unearths New Debate

A brief history of the high court’s involvement in reproductive rights.

People file out of the Supreme Court after the morning session hearing arguments on the Affordable Care Act on Wednesday, march 28, 2012, the last day of hearings. 
National Journal
Clara Ritger
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Clara Ritger
Nov. 29, 2013, 12:30 a.m.

The Su­preme Court’s re­view of private cor­por­a­tions’ chal­lenge to the Af­ford­able Care Act’s con­tra­cep­tion man­date has al­most no pre­ced­ent.

The last time the Court is­sued a pro­clam­a­tion about con­tra­cep­tion was in 1977, when it ruled un­con­sti­tu­tion­al a New York law pro­hib­it­ing the sale of birth con­trol to minors.

In the 30-plus years fol­low­ing that de­cision, cases be­fore the Court have fo­cused primar­ily on states’ abor­tion re­stric­tions. City of Ak­ron v. Ak­ron Cen­ter for Re­pro­duct­ive Health (1983) brought forth an Ohio law in­sti­tut­ing a myri­ad of obstacles for wo­men seek­ing abor­tions, in­clud­ing that the wo­man must re­ceive in­form­a­tion about her preg­nancy, wait 24 hours after sign­ing the con­sent form, and have the pro­ced­ure per­formed in a hos­pit­al, all of which the Court ruled un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

Web­ster v. Re­pro­duct­ive Health Ser­vices (1989) was ruled in fa­vor of a Mis­souri law, which lim­ited the use of state funds for abor­tions and re­quired wo­men to ter­min­ate preg­nan­cies in private fa­cil­it­ies ex­cept when the preg­nancy is life-threat­en­ing. Most re­cently, in 2007, the Court up­held the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion’s Par­tial-Birth Abor­tion Ban Act of 2003, pro­hib­it­ing a late-term abor­tion pro­ced­ure.

Des­pite a fo­cus on abor­tion rights, the Court laid the ground­work for Roe v. Wade — the 1973 land­mark case ex­tend­ing the con­sti­tu­tion­al right to pri­vacy to a wo­man’s de­cision wheth­er or not to ter­min­ate her preg­nancy — through a series of de­cisions on con­tra­cep­tion. Gris­wold v. Con­necti­c­ut (1965) gave mar­ried couples the con­sti­tu­tion­al right to pri­vacy when mak­ing de­cisions about child­bear­ing and con­tra­cept­ive use, and Ein­stadt v. Baird (1972) ex­ten­ded that same right to single in­di­vidu­als.

This time is dif­fer­ent. Se­beli­us v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Con­es­toga Wood Spe­cial­ties Corp. v. Se­beli­us raise the is­sue of wheth­er a private en­tity has the right to re­strict in­di­vidu­als’ ac­cess to con­tra­cep­tion, an en­tirely dif­fer­ent ques­tion from wheth­er the state can le­gis­late such bar­ri­ers. Bri­gitte Amiri, a seni­or staff at­tor­ney with the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on’s Re­pro­duct­ive Free­dom Pro­ject, said the case is im­port­ant be­cause of the mil­lions of wo­men who stand to be­ne­fit — and already have — from ex­pan­ded ac­cess to con­tra­cep­tion.

But it’s un­likely that the Court would ex­tend its rul­ing in these cases bey­ond the com­pan­ies that have filed suits, she said, giv­en that the lower courts have also is­sued lim­ited de­cisions.

The ques­tion then be­comes wheth­er com­pan­ies have re­li­gious liberty, and wheth­er that can be im­posed on em­ploy­ees.

“The Su­preme Court really hasn’t de­cided wheth­er a cor­por­a­tion can have re­li­gious liberty to get out from un­der a fed­er­al reg­u­la­tion,” Amiri said. “Not in terms of a for-profit cor­por­a­tion. It’s really a nov­el ques­tion.”

The ACLU will file friend-of-the-court briefs in both of the con­tra­cept­ive cases, which are ex­pec­ted to ap­pear be­fore the Su­preme Court in March.

What We're Following See More »
ANOTHER GOP MODERATE TO HER SIDE
John Warner to Endorse Clinton
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will score another high-powered Republican endorsement on Wednesday, according to a campaign aide: retired senator John Warner of Virginia, a popular GOP maverick with renowned military credentials."

Source:
AUTHORITY OF EPA IN QUESTION
Appeals Court Hears Clean Power Plant Case
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday "heard several hours of oral arguments" over the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan rules. The 10-judge panel "focused much of their questioning on whether the EPA had overstepped its legal authority by seeking to broadly compel this shift away from coal, a move the EPA calls the Best System of Emission Reduction, or BSER. The states and companies suing the EPA argue the agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate anything outside of a power plant itself."

Source:
$28 MILLION THIS WEEK
Here Come the Ad Buys
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Spending by super PACs tied to Donald Trump friends such as Ben Carson and banker Andy Beal will help make this week the general election's most expensive yet. Republicans and Democrats will spend almost $28 million on radio and television this week, according to advertising records, as Trump substantially increases his advertising buy for the final stretch. He's spending $6.4 million in nine states, part of what aides have said will be a $100 million television campaign through Election Day."

Source:
UNLIKELY TO GET A VOTE, LIKELY TO ANGER GOP SENATORS
Obama Nominates Ambassador to Cuba
11 hours ago
THE LATEST
GOP REFUSED VOTE ON FCC COMMISIONER
Reid Blocks Tech Bill Over “Broken Promise”
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Monday night's debate may have inspired some in Congress, as Senate Minority Leader has decided to take a stand of his own. Reid is declining to allow a vote on a "bipartisan bill that would bolster U.S. spectrum availability and the deployment of wireless broadband." Why? Because of a "broken promise" made a year ago by Republicans, who have refused to vote on confirmation for a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to a second term. Harry Reid then took it a step further, invoking another confirmation vote still outstanding, that of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Source:
×