The Supreme Court will take another crack at Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
The court agreed Friday to hear another lawsuit challenging the birth-control requirement, this one filed by religious nonprofits. Roughly two years after the Court rolled back the contraception mandate in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, the nonprofits say the court needs to go a step further.
The contraception mandate isn’t particularly intertwined with the rest of Obamacare, so another ruling against it wouldn’t threaten the law as a whole. But the provision has become a political lightning rod, pitting women’s-health advocates against religious organizations.
And Friday’s decision to hear the contraception case might only be the beginning. The Court is widely expected to take up an abortion case later this term—setting the stage for high-profile rulings on both abortion and contraception, just months before the 2016 elections.
The contraception mandate
Obamacare requires most employers to cover certain preventive services in their employees’ health care plans, without cost-sharing like a co-pay or deductible. And, based on the recommendation of an expert scientific panel, the Health and Human Services Department included all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives in the definition of preventive services.
Churches and houses of worship are exempt from the mandate. Religious-affiliated employers—like the nonprofits in this case—have a middle ground. They don’t have to directly provide coverage for contraception in their health care plans. And they don’t have to pay for that coverage, either.
Instead, they’re required to fill out a form registering their objections to birth control, and the duty for providing it shifts to their insurance companies.
The Little Sisters’ objection
A group of religious nonprofits, led by the Little Sisters of the Poor, an organization of nuns, says the workaround for religious-affiliated employers doesn’t go far enough.
They object to filling out the form that registers their religious objections to contraception coverage. Because they have to fill out that form, they say, HHS is making them participate in a process that still ends with their employees’ health care plans including contraception.
And they say that’s just as objectionable as providing it directly. They want to be exempted entirely from the mandate.
“It is all well and good for HHS to think it has threaded the needle and found a way for religious nonprofits to comply with the mandate without violating their religious beliefs, but ultimately it is for the religious adherent to determine how much facilitation or complicity is too much,” the Little Sisters said in a brief to the high court.
How this is different from Hobby Lobby
Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, the 2014 case in which the Court weakened the contraception mandate, was slightly different from today’s challenge. That case dealt with for-profit companies rather than nonprofits. Until the Court intervened, for-profit companies had to provide contraception coverage themselves; they didn’t have access to the “accommodation” that lets nonprofits shift the burden to their insurance companies.
The Obama administration argues that, by creating a different process for religious nonprofits, it has already tailored the contraception mandate so that it will impose the smallest possible burden on religious exercise—and that’s what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires.
Not surprisingly, the Little Sisters disagree. They argue that the two cases are extremely similar, and that courts are simply misapplying the obvious point of Hobby Lobby.
“Indeed, the burden here is not just analogous to the burden in Hobby Lobby; it is identical,” the Little Sisters wrote in their brief.
Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled and, as always, the Court did not explain why it took the case.
What We're Following See More »
"Saudi Arabia said Saturday that Jamal Khashoggi, the dissident Saudi journalist who disappeared more than two weeks ago, had died after an argument and fistfight with unidentified men inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Eighteen men have been arrested and are being investigated in the case, Saudi state-run media reported without identifying any of them. State media also reported that Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, the deputy director of Saudi intelligence, and other high-ranking intelligence officials had been dismissed."
"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is scrutinizing how a collection of activists and pundits intersected with WikiLeaks, the website that U.S. officials say was the primary conduit for publishing materials stolen by Russia, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Mueller’s team has recently questioned witnesses about the activities of longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone, including his contacts with WikiLeaks, and has obtained telephone records, according to the people familiar with the matter."
"Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue findings on core aspects of his Russia probe soon after the November midterm elections ... Specifically, Mueller is close to rendering judgment on two of the most explosive aspects of his inquiry: whether there were clear incidents of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, and whether the president took any actions that constitute obstruction of justice." Mueller has faced pressure to wrap up the investigation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, said an official, who would receive the results of the investigation and have "some discretion in deciding what is relayed to Congress and what is publicly released," if he remains at his post.
"The Justice Department on Friday charged a Russian woman for her alleged role in a conspiracy to interfere with the 2018 U.S. election, marking the first criminal case prosecutors have brought against a foreign national for interfering in the upcoming midterms. Elena Khusyaynova, 44, was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Prosecutors said she managed the finances of 'Project Lakhta,' a foreign influence operation they said was designed 'to sow discord in the U.S. political system' by pushing arguments and misinformation online about a host of divisive political issues, including immigration, the Confederate flag, gun control and the National Football League national-anthem protests."