User login
Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration from weakening the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate in two separate orders that bar the President from letting more entities claim exemptions.
On Jan. 14, U.S. District Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a temporary nationwide ban on two rules that would have allowed an expanded group of employers and insurers to object to providing contraception coverage on either religious or moral grounds. The regulations, announced Nov. 7, 2018, were scheduled to take effect Jan. 14. The day before, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam for the Northern District of California issued a similar temporary ban, but his order applied only to the 13 plaintiff states in the case, plus the District of Columbia.
While Pennsylvania and New Jersey are the only plaintiffs in the Judge Beetlestone case, she wrote that a nationwide injunction is required to protect numerous citizens from losing contraceptive coverage and resulting in “significant, direct, and proprietary harm” to states in the form of increased state-funded contraceptive services and increased costs associated with unintended pregnancies. Judge Gilliam provided similar reasoning in his Jan. 13 order, writing that the 13 plaintiff states have proven that rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would cause women to lose employer-sponsored contraceptive coverage, resulting in economic harm to the states.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a plaintiff in the second case, said Judge Gilliam’s ruling will stop the Trump administration from denying millions of women and families access to co-pay birth control guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act.
“The law couldn’t be clearer – employers have no business interfering in women’s health care decisions,” Mr. Becerra said in the statement. “[The] court ruling stops another attempt by the Trump administration to trample on women’s access to basic reproductive care.”
At press time, the Trump administration officials had responded publicly to the court orders. The administration previously said the new policies would “better balance the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions.” HHS estimated that the rules would affect no more than 200 employers.
Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a legal institute that defends religious freedoms, expressed disappointment at the court orders. Becket represents the Little Sisters of the Poor, an organization that has been fighting for several years for an exemption to the contraceptive mandate.
“Government bureaucrats should not be allowed to threaten the rights of the Little Sisters of the Poor to serve according to their Catholic beliefs,” Mr. Rienzi said in a statement. “Now the nuns are forced to keep fighting this unnecessary lawsuit to protect their ability to focus on caring for the poor. We are confident these decisions will be overturned.”
The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, except for group health plans of religious employers, which were deemed exempt. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and legal challenges, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers to opt out of the mandate.
However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom. The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved. In May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.
The Trump administration then announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. A second rule would protect nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions that oppose services covered by the mandate. The religious and moral exemptions would apply to institutions of education, issuers, and individuals, but not to governmental entities.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case.
The nationwide ban against the rules will remain in effect while the cases continue through the court system.
Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration from weakening the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate in two separate orders that bar the President from letting more entities claim exemptions.
On Jan. 14, U.S. District Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a temporary nationwide ban on two rules that would have allowed an expanded group of employers and insurers to object to providing contraception coverage on either religious or moral grounds. The regulations, announced Nov. 7, 2018, were scheduled to take effect Jan. 14. The day before, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam for the Northern District of California issued a similar temporary ban, but his order applied only to the 13 plaintiff states in the case, plus the District of Columbia.
While Pennsylvania and New Jersey are the only plaintiffs in the Judge Beetlestone case, she wrote that a nationwide injunction is required to protect numerous citizens from losing contraceptive coverage and resulting in “significant, direct, and proprietary harm” to states in the form of increased state-funded contraceptive services and increased costs associated with unintended pregnancies. Judge Gilliam provided similar reasoning in his Jan. 13 order, writing that the 13 plaintiff states have proven that rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would cause women to lose employer-sponsored contraceptive coverage, resulting in economic harm to the states.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a plaintiff in the second case, said Judge Gilliam’s ruling will stop the Trump administration from denying millions of women and families access to co-pay birth control guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act.
“The law couldn’t be clearer – employers have no business interfering in women’s health care decisions,” Mr. Becerra said in the statement. “[The] court ruling stops another attempt by the Trump administration to trample on women’s access to basic reproductive care.”
At press time, the Trump administration officials had responded publicly to the court orders. The administration previously said the new policies would “better balance the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions.” HHS estimated that the rules would affect no more than 200 employers.
Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a legal institute that defends religious freedoms, expressed disappointment at the court orders. Becket represents the Little Sisters of the Poor, an organization that has been fighting for several years for an exemption to the contraceptive mandate.
“Government bureaucrats should not be allowed to threaten the rights of the Little Sisters of the Poor to serve according to their Catholic beliefs,” Mr. Rienzi said in a statement. “Now the nuns are forced to keep fighting this unnecessary lawsuit to protect their ability to focus on caring for the poor. We are confident these decisions will be overturned.”
The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, except for group health plans of religious employers, which were deemed exempt. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and legal challenges, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers to opt out of the mandate.
However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom. The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved. In May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.
The Trump administration then announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. A second rule would protect nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions that oppose services covered by the mandate. The religious and moral exemptions would apply to institutions of education, issuers, and individuals, but not to governmental entities.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case.
The nationwide ban against the rules will remain in effect while the cases continue through the court system.
Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration from weakening the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate in two separate orders that bar the President from letting more entities claim exemptions.
On Jan. 14, U.S. District Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a temporary nationwide ban on two rules that would have allowed an expanded group of employers and insurers to object to providing contraception coverage on either religious or moral grounds. The regulations, announced Nov. 7, 2018, were scheduled to take effect Jan. 14. The day before, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam for the Northern District of California issued a similar temporary ban, but his order applied only to the 13 plaintiff states in the case, plus the District of Columbia.
While Pennsylvania and New Jersey are the only plaintiffs in the Judge Beetlestone case, she wrote that a nationwide injunction is required to protect numerous citizens from losing contraceptive coverage and resulting in “significant, direct, and proprietary harm” to states in the form of increased state-funded contraceptive services and increased costs associated with unintended pregnancies. Judge Gilliam provided similar reasoning in his Jan. 13 order, writing that the 13 plaintiff states have proven that rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would cause women to lose employer-sponsored contraceptive coverage, resulting in economic harm to the states.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a plaintiff in the second case, said Judge Gilliam’s ruling will stop the Trump administration from denying millions of women and families access to co-pay birth control guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act.
“The law couldn’t be clearer – employers have no business interfering in women’s health care decisions,” Mr. Becerra said in the statement. “[The] court ruling stops another attempt by the Trump administration to trample on women’s access to basic reproductive care.”
At press time, the Trump administration officials had responded publicly to the court orders. The administration previously said the new policies would “better balance the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions.” HHS estimated that the rules would affect no more than 200 employers.
Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a legal institute that defends religious freedoms, expressed disappointment at the court orders. Becket represents the Little Sisters of the Poor, an organization that has been fighting for several years for an exemption to the contraceptive mandate.
“Government bureaucrats should not be allowed to threaten the rights of the Little Sisters of the Poor to serve according to their Catholic beliefs,” Mr. Rienzi said in a statement. “Now the nuns are forced to keep fighting this unnecessary lawsuit to protect their ability to focus on caring for the poor. We are confident these decisions will be overturned.”
The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, except for group health plans of religious employers, which were deemed exempt. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and legal challenges, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers to opt out of the mandate.
However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom. The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved. In May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.
The Trump administration then announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. A second rule would protect nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions that oppose services covered by the mandate. The religious and moral exemptions would apply to institutions of education, issuers, and individuals, but not to governmental entities.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case.
The nationwide ban against the rules will remain in effect while the cases continue through the court system.