
Supreme Court Will Hear Another Challenge to the ACA's Contraception Mandate
The Supreme Court has decided to hear a challenge from religious nonprofits who say the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide birth control violates their religious beliefs.
Challenges to President Obama’s healthcare law keep reaching the Supreme Court. The latest case to be heard by the country’s highest court is a challenge from religious nonprofits who say the requirement to provide birth control violates their religious beliefs.
The court has consolidated the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor with Houston Baptist and East Texas Baptist Universities, Priests for Life, South Nazarene University, Geneva College, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, and Zubik.
“The Becket Fund is grateful that the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on this important case,” Mark Rienzi, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who was representing the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Houston Baptist and East Texas Baptist Universities,
The Becket Fund also argued and won the Hobby Lobby case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that certain for-profit companies could opt out of the mandate.
In order to opt out of the legal requirement that employers include contraceptives as part of health insurance coverage, employers can file their religious objections and let insurance companies and the government take over. However, the concern from religious groups is that even doing that would implicate them in what they view as a sin,
“These claims are baseless and ultimately about paperwork — not religious freedom,” Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood,
While the challenge made its way through the lower courts, 7 circuit courts sided with the government and 1 sided with the religious nonprofits. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that ruled in favor of the government ruled that the accommodation to file religious objections was not a substantial burden.
“All plaintiffs must do to opt out is express what they believe and seek what they want via a letter or two-page form,” Judge Cornelia T. L. Pillard
The case will be argued in the first half of 2016 with a decision expected by the end of June.
Newsletter
Stay ahead of policy, cost, and value—subscribe to AJMC for expert insights at the intersection of clinical care and health economics.