2020_010_A
Support the Café
Search our site

Contraception challenge: “Little Sisters” have no case

Contraception challenge: “Little Sisters” have no case

Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches has been covering the challenge by the Roman Catholic Church order, Little Sisters of the Poor, to the contraception mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act:

In the latest development in the Little Sisters of the Poor’s lawsuit challenging, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the contraception benefit coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the government today filed its brief in the Supreme Court.

To recap briefly: in a flurry of activity at the end of the year, just before the regulations went into effect January 1, a district court in Colorado denied the Little Sisters’ motion for a preliminary injunction; the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision; and Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted Little Sisters’ emergency application for a stay of that decision, ordering the Department of Justice to file a brief in response.

In its brief, the government argues the plaintiffs “have no legal basis to challenge the self-certification requirement or to complain that it involves them in the process of providing contraceptive coverage.” Both the insurer and the third-party administrator are exempt, the government argues, and even if they were to suddenly decide that they would provide the coverage, Little Sisters’ employees would receive the coverage despite Little Sisters’ objections, not because of them. But because the Christian Brothers entities have said they will under no circumstances provide the coverage, the Little Sisters, the government argues, don’t have an argument that they are “authorizing others” to provide the coverage by filling out the self-certification form.

Read the rest here.

Amanda Marcotte, in Slate, writes that granting a stay does not mean Justice Sotomayor necessarily agrees with the Little Sisters of Poverty.

These groups are arguing that filling out a form is a violation of their religious freedom and that “religious freedom” means that you should have control over your employee’s health care decisions even when they happen outside of the insurance coverage you directly provide for them. Even the lawyer for one of the groups, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, admits that this lawsuit is about trying to weasel out of nothing more onerous than signing a piece of paper.

It’s important not to read too much in Sotomayor’s willingness to grant these groups a temporary injunction from signing a piece of paper. The injunction is only to allow the status quo to continue until the case gets heard in court. That won’t be great for the employees of these groups, who will have to continue without employer-provided contraception coverage and will also be unable to get coverage directly from their insurance companies, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the court is siding with the Sisters on this one.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tgflux

“Maybe prospective employees should ask what the employer’s views are on…”

Not to harp on you, Richard, but anyone who’d make such a comment—any time in the last 5-10 years anyway—is either *securely* employed or retired. The rest of us can’t afford to be that choosy.

JC Fisher

Elizabeth Kaeton

Contraception is an integral and important part of preventative health care for women. It is reasonable for a prospective employee – male or female – to expect their employer to provide insurance that provides and promote good preventative health care for all people.

Richard III

Maybe prospective employees should ask what the employer’s views are on such matters before accepting a job offer, at least that way they can’t say they weren’t fore warned.

Richard Warren

tgflux

The Slate piece really makes it clear: it’s not the Little Sisters don’t want to pay for birth control, it’s that they want to ENSURE (by any means necessary) that their employees don’t get insurance that covers birth control.

Pathetic (And wrong. Sinfully wrong, IMO.)

JC Fisher

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café