The Maui News

Court rules some employers can refuse to offer free birth control

- By JESSICA GRESKO The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled broadly Wednesday in favor 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 two liberal justices joining conservati­ves in favor of the Trump administra­tion and religious employers.

In the more prominent of the two cases, involving President Barack

Obama’s health care overhaul, the justices greenlight­ed 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. It was also good news for the administra­tion, which in recent weeks has seen headlinema­king Supreme Court decisions go against its positions.

In one of those earlier cases, the court rejected Trump’s effort to end legal protection­s for 650,000 young immigrants. In another, the justices said a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgende­r people from discrimina­tion in employment.

Another particular­ly important decision for Trump is ahead. The justices are expected to announce TODAYwheth­er Congress and the Manhattan district attorney can see the president’s taxes and other financial records he has fought to keep private.

In its second big ruling on Wednesday, the court sided with two Catholic schools in California in a decision underscori­ng that certain employees of religious schools can’t sue for employment discrimina­tion.

Lay teachers whose contracts had not been renewed had sued their schools. But Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion: “When a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibi­lity of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial interventi­on into disputes between the school and the teacher threatens the school’s independen­ce in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.”

The court’s birth-control decision was cheered by conservati­ve groups, and White House spokeswoma­n Kayleigh McEnany joined in. “Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a big win for religious freedom and freedom of conscience,” she said in a statement.

Liberal groups and Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, decried the decision, which she called a “fundamenta­l misreading” of the health care law. Presumptiv­e Democratic presidenti­al nominee Joe Biden said the decision will make it “easier for the Trump-Pence Administra­tion to continue to strip health care from women.”

The Trump administra­tion is still seeking to overturn Obama’s Affordable Care Act in its entirety. It has joined Texas and other Republican-led states in calling on the justices to do just that. The 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 has the authority to make its birth-control coverage changes and followed appropriat­e procedures in doing so.

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

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited those numbers in dissenting.

“Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervai­ling rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree,” she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Birth control coverage has been a topic of contention since the health care law was passed.

“The ACA’s contracept­ive mandate . . . has existed for approximat­ely nine years. Litigation surroundin­g that requiremen­t has lasted nearly as long,” Thomas wrote.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States