Albuquerque Journal

Justices wary of birth control changes

- BY JESSICA GRESKO AND MARK SHERMAN ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed concerned Wednesday about the sweep of Trump administra­tion rules that would allow more employers who cite a religious or moral objection to opt out of providing no-cost birth control to women as required by the Affordable Care Act.

The justices were hearing their third day of arguments conducted by telephone because of the coronaviru­s pandemic. The first of two cases before them Wednesday stemmed from the Obama-era health law, under which most employers must cover birth control as a preventive service, at no charge to women, in their insurance plans.

In 2017, the Trump administra­tion announced it would broaden an exemption to the contracept­ive coverage requiremen­t that previously applied to houses of worship, such as churches, synagogues and mosques. But the change was blocked by courts.

The Supreme Court’s four liberal justices suggested they were troubled by the changes, which the government has estimated would cause about 70,000 women, and at most 126,000 women, to lose contracept­ion coverage in one year.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a key vote on a court split between conservati­ves and liberals, suggested that the Trump administra­tion’s reliance on a federal religious freedom law to expand the exemption was “too broad.”

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the conversati­on from a Maryland hospital where she was being treated for an infection caused by a gallstone, gave the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Noel Franciso, what sounded like a lecture.

“You have just tossed entirely to the wind what Congress thought was essential, that is that women be provided these …. services with no hassle, no cost to them,” said Ginsburg, who was released from the hospital later Wednesday.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States