Hobby Lobby, the Sequel: Coming Soon to SCOTUS

The high court agreed to hear another challenge to Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Sam Baker
Add to Briefcase
Sam Baker
Nov. 6, 2015, 1:41 p.m.

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 »
HOPES A DEAL CAN GET DONE
Schumer Meeting with Trump for Last-Ditch Meeting
19 hours ago
THE LATEST
BY SCALISE
House Told to “Stay Flexible”
20 hours ago
THE DETAILS
ALREADY PASSED CR, MCCARTHY SAYS
House Is Heading Home
21 hours ago
THE LATEST
WHILE ROME BURNS?
Trump Hosting $100,000/Couple Fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago
22 hours ago
THE LATEST

Even while Congress works to avoid a government shutdown at 5 p.m. today, "President Donald Trump will mark the first anniversary of his inauguration on Saturday with a celebration at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, with tickets starting at $100,000 a pair. That amount, according to the invitation, will pay for dinner and a photograph with the president. For $250,000, a couple can also take part in a roundtable." The event will boost the Trump presidential campaign and the RNC.

Source:
DACA STILL A STICKING POINT
House Passes Spending Bill, but Senate May Balk
22 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The House approved a stopgap spending bill on Thursday night to keep the government open past Friday, but Senate Democrats — angered by President Trump’s vulgar aspersions and a lack of progress on a broader budget and immigration deal — appeared ready to block the measure. The House approved the measure 230 to 197, despite conflicting signals by President Trump sent throughout the day and a threatened rebellion from conservatives that ended up fizzling. But the bill, which would keep the government open through Feb. 16, provided only a faint glimmer of hope that a crisis could be averted before funding expires at midnight on Friday. In the Senate, at least about a dozen Democratic votes would be needed to approve the measure, and there was little chance that those would materialize."

Source:
×
×

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