Toronto Star

Employers granted right to curb birth control coverage

Court ruling a significan­t win for Trump, who relies on Christian voters

- JESSICA GRESKO

WASHINGTON— The U.S. Supreme Court ruled broadly Wednesday in favour of the religious rights of employers in two cases that could leave more than 70,000 women without free contracept­ion and tens of thousands of people with no way to sue for job discrimina­tion.

In both cases the court ruled 7-2, with both liberal and conservati­ve justices ruling in favour of the Trump administra­tion and religious employers.

In the more prominent of the two cases, involving former U.S. president Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, the justices green-lighted changes the Trump administra­tion had sought. The administra­tion announced in 2017 that it would allow more employers to opt out of providing the no-cost birth control coverage required under the law, but lower courts had blocked the changes.

The ruling is a significan­t election-year win for President Donald Trump, who counts on heavy support from evangelica­ls and other Christian groups for votes and policy backing. On Wednesday, the White House joined conservati­ve groups in cheering the court’s contracept­ion decision.

Liberal groups and Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, decried the decision, which she called a “fundamenta­l misreading” of the health-care law.

The Trump administra­tion is still seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. It has joined Texas and other Republican-led states in calling on the justices to do just that.

That case is scheduled to be argued in the court term that begins in October.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority of the court, said in Wednesday’s decision that the administra­tion had the authority to make the changes and followed appropriat­e procedures in doing so.

The government had previously estimated that the rule changes would cause between 70,000 women and 126,000 women to lose contracept­ion coverage in one year.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited those numbers in dissenting.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada