contraception mandate

The Third Circuit has ruled that the religious exception from the mandate that all health insurance plans cover contraception is fair, The Legal Intelligencer's Saranac Hale Spencer reports. The accommodation for nonprofit religious organizations requires a head of a religious nonprofit to submit a self-certification to insurers that it will be claiming the exception so that the insurer, not the employer, is paying for the contraceptive portion of insurance coverage. The challengers argued "the act of sending the notification to the insurance company makes them complicit in providing the contraceptive services to which they object, which qualifies as a substantial burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act," but the appellate panel reasoned that "'the regulatory notice requirement does not necessitate any action that interferes with the appellees' religious activities,'" Spencer reports.

The U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4, ruled that closely owned corporations can't be forced to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under Obamacare, the New York Times' Adam Liptak reports. Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet maker, and Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, challenged that part of the health law on the grounds that it violates their Christian beliefs. The Supreme Court found that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the mandate was a substantial burden on the corporations' religious liberty. Even if the government has a compelling interest in ensuring women's access to contraception, the current mechanism of the mandate is not the "least restrictive means of serving that interest," the majority's author, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared split on whether private for-profit companies have to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to their employees, even if it violates their owners' religious beliefs, the Christian Science Monitor reports. Swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy "asked skeptical questions of both sides, but one interaction with US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli might signal trouble for the Obama administration’s position. Kennedy asked Mr. Verrilli whether the administration’s position might mean that for-profit corporations could be forced to pay for abortions for their employees regardless of any religious objections of company owners. 'No,' Verrilli said immediately. A federal law prohibits such a government command, he said. 'But your reasoning would permit that,' Kennedy persisted."

The U.S. Supreme Court's workload might reach a new low because the court will consider only half the usual number of cases when it convenes in March, The Washington Post's Robert Barnes reports. Yet the issues the court will consider are central to American society- whether corporations are entitled to religious expression, affirmative action and separation of powers between the presidency and Congress over the appointment of governmental officials, Barnes writes. “The court has had several cases implicating major issues of national debate each of the last few years. What that shows is that this is a court that’s not at all shy about tackling hot-button issues,” Supreme Court litigator Kannon Shanmugam told Barnes.

United Press International has this roundup of cases to watch when the U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes January 13: "The big dog in the rest of the Supreme Court term which ends when the justices 'rise; for the summer recess -- when the supreme backsides leave their comfortable rocking chairs behind the bench -- is the challenge to the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate. The case demonstrates a Washington fact: The Supreme Court often influences how the average American lives as much or more than Congress or the White House. The justices agreed to settle the dispute over the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate -- whether the health of women covered is dispositive, as the Obama administration argues, or whether the owners of for-profit businesses may use religious objections to avoid providing contraception insurance."

The New York Times' Adam Liptak writes that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide tomorrow if it will hear a lower court decision that mandating a corporation provide contraceptive coverage for its employees violates freedom of religion.

Even though the Third Circuit has held that "secular, for-profit companies aren't afforded religious protection and the constitutional rights of their owners don't pass through to the corporate entity," a district-court federal judge sided with employers that are challenging Obamacare's contraceptive-coverage mandate on the grounds that it violates their freedom of religion, The Legal Intelligencer, Pennsylvania's legal newspaper, reported. The Legal also reported that U.S. District Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied a request from the Obama administration for an indicative ruling on the application of the Third Circuit case when Conti had granted an injunction for a plaintiff from the contraception mandate.

The issue is being primed for the U.S. Supreme Court. A circuit split is present on the issue between the Third Circuit and the Tenth Circuit.
 

The clash over the requirement that most employers, as well as insurers for religious institutions that are not directly associated with houses of worship, cover female employees' contraception is primed for the U.S. Supreme Court, UPI reports. The Sixth and Third Circuits ruled against challenges to the insurance mandate to cover contraception, but the 10th Circuit has ruled in favor of a challenge by two private, secular companies, UPI also reported. The Solicitor General has asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari on the issue, and such requests tend to be granted by the justices, UPI also reports.