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 »
COULD COME UNDER MUELLER’S SCRUTINY
Deutsche Bank Gave Kushner a $285 Million Loan in October
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"One month before Election Day, Jared Kushner’s real estate company finalized a $285 million loan as part of a refinancing package for its property near Times Square in Manhattan. The loan came at a critical moment. Kushner was playing a key role in the presidential campaign of his father-in-law, Donald Trump. The lender, Deutsche Bank, was negotiating to settle a federal mortgage fraud case and charges from New York state regulators that it aided a possible Russian money-laundering scheme."

Source:
WANTS ANSWERS ON CLINTON EMAIL PROBE
Senate Judiciary Sends Questions to Loretta Lynch
2 days ago
THE LATEST
ARE “OPEN TO NEGOTIATION”
Sens. Paul, Cruz, Johnson and Lee Oppose Senate Health Care Bill
3 days ago
THE LATEST

The four Senators released a joint statement, saying in part, "There are provisions in this draft that repreesnt an improvement to our current health care system, but it does not appear this draft as written will accomplish the most important promise we made to Americans: to repeal Obamacare and lower their health care costs."

Source:
TRUMP SUGGESTED THERE WERE TAPES
No Comey Tapes
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Trump tweeted Thursday afternoon, "With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are "tapes" or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings."

Source:
DEVELOPING
Senate Healthcare Bill In Trouble?
3 days ago
BREAKING
×
×

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