Lodi News-Sentinel

Second federal judge blocks Trump contracept­ion rules

- By Sudhin Thanawala

SAN FRANCISCO — California faces potentiall­y “dire” public health and financial consequenc­es from new rules by the Trump administra­tion allowing more employers to opt out of providing women with no-cost birth control, a federal judge said Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland became the second federal judge in the country to block the changes to President Barack Obama’s health care law, saying the Trump administra­tion failed to provide the required notice and public comment period before implementi­ng them.

A federal judge in Philadelph­ia last week cited similar reasons in her nationwide injunction against the rules. That decision came in a lawsuit brought by the state of Pennsylvan­ia.

Gilliam’s ruling came in a separate lawsuit brought by the state of California, which was joined by Delaware, Maryland, New York and Virginia. Gilliam’s preliminar­y injunction will hold while their lawsuit against the rules moves forward.

For a substantia­l number of women, the new rules “transform contracept­ive coverage from a legal entitlemen­t to an essentiall­y gratuitous benefit wholly subject to their employer’s discretion,” Gilliam, an Obama appointee, wrote.

U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoma­n Lauren Ehrsam said the DOJ was “evaluating next steps.”

The DOJ said in court documents that the rules were about protecting a small group of “sincere religious and moral objectors” from having to violate their beliefs.

“This administra­tion is committed to defending the religious liberty of all Americans and we look forward to doing so in court,” Ehrsam said in her statement.

President Barack Obama’s health care law required most companies to cover birth control at no additional cost, though it included exemptions for religious organizati­ons. The new policy would allow more categories of employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing free contracept­ion to women by claiming religious objections. It would allow any company that is not publicly traded to deny coverage on moral grounds.

California argued that the change could result in millions of women in the state losing free birth control services, leading to unintended pregnancie­s that would tax the state’s health care and other social programs.

A lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice, Ethan Davis, told Gilliam during a Dec. 12 hearing that it was not clear that any women would lose no-cost contracept­ion coverage.

Washington state and Massachuse­tts have also sued the Trump administra­tion over the rules.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued the new policy in October. It marked another step in the Trump administra­tion’s rollback of Obama’s health care law.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States