Politics NewsTop News

U.S. Supreme Court hears Obamacare contraception Case; Ginsburg takes part

imageWorld7 hours ago (May 06, 2020 10:35AM ET)

(C) Reuters. FILE PHOTO: A police officer is mostly alone on the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Washington

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday considered a bid by Donald Trump’s administration to implement rules allowing employers to obtain religious exemptions from an Obamacare requirement that health insurance that they provide to employees covers women’s birth control.

The justices began a scheduled one-hour argument by teleconference, their third this week in this new format prompted by the coronavirus pandemic.

At issue is a challenge by the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey to the administration’s 2018 rule that permits broad religious and moral exemptions to the contraception mandate of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, and expands accommodations already allowed.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 87 the court’s oldest member, participated in the argument from Baltimore after being hospitalized for non-surgical treatment for an infection arising from a gallstone in her cystic duct. She also is due to take part in a second case before the court on Wednesday, a challenge involving a telephone consumer protection law.

Early in the argument, Ginsburg asked a lengthy question of Solicitor General Noel Francisco in which she said Trump’s administration had “tossed entirely to the wind what Congress considered to be essential, that women be provided this service, with no hassle and no cost to them.”

The administration has asked the Supreme Court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority that includes two Trump appointees, to reverse a nationwide injunction issued by a lower court blocking the rule.

The administration is joined in the litigation by the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic order of nuns that is one of the groups seeking an exemption for its employees.

Rules implemented under Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama exempted religious entities from the mandate and a further accommodation was created for religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, which some groups including the Little Sisters of the Poor objected to as not going far enough.

The contraceptive mandate under the law, which was signed by Obama in 2010 and has faced Republican efforts to repeal it ever since, requires that employer-provided health insurance include coverage for birth control with no co-payment. Previously, many employer-provided insurance policies did not offer this coverage.

The blocked Trump rule would allow any nonprofit or for-profit employer, including publicly traded companies, to seek an exemption on religious grounds. A moral objection can be made by nonprofits and companies that are not publicly traded. The Trump administration exemption also would be available for religiously affiliated universities that provide health insurance to students.

The legal question is whether Trump’s administration had the legal authority to expand the exemption under both the Obamacare law itself and another federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allows people to press religious claims against the federal government.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld a nationwide injunction issued by a district court judge in the lawsuit that blocked implementation of the exemptions.

The justices addressed the question of religious accommodations to the Obamacare contraception mandate once before. In 2016, they sidestepped a decision on previous rules issued under Obama, sending the dispute back to lower courts.

U.S. Supreme Court hears Obamacare contraception Case; Ginsburg takes part

Disclaimer: Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. All CFDs (stocks, indexes, futures) and Forex prices are not provided by exchanges but rather by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual market price, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Therefore Fusion Media doesn`t bear any responsibility for any trading losses you might incur as a result of using this data.

Fusion Media or anyone involved with Fusion Media will not accept any liability for loss or damage as a result of reliance on the information including data, quotes, charts and buy/sell signals contained within this website. Please be fully informed regarding the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, it is one of the riskiest investment forms possible.

Related Articles

Back to top button
Close
Close

Get the daily email that makes reading the news actually enjoyable. Stay informed and entertained, for free.

Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!