The Oklahoman

Justices wary of change to `Obamacare' birth control coverage

- By Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman The 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 stem med from the O ba ma-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 broad en 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 is expected to be in the hospital for a day or two.

The court's conservati­ve justices seemed more willing to side with the administra­tion, with Trump appointee Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting the administra­tion's changes might be considered “within the bounds of reasonable.”

Beyond exempting churches, synagogues and mosques from the contracept­ive coverage requiremen­t, the Obama administra­tion also created away by which religious ly affiliated organizati­ons including hospitals, universiti­es and charities could opt out of paying for contracept­ion, but women on their health plans would still get nocost birth control. Some groups complained the opt-out process itself violated their religious beliefs.

That opt-out process was the subject of a previous Supreme Court case, but the court, with only eight justices at the time because of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, didn't decide the issue. It instead sent both sides back to see if they could work out a compromise.

That didn't happen. “Is it really the case that there is no way to resolve those difference­s?” Roberts asked at one point.

After the Trump administra­tion took over, officials announced a rule change that allows many companies and organizati­on with religious or moral objections to opt out of covering birth control without providing an alternate avenue for coverage.

New Jersey and Pennsylvan­ia challenged the rules in court, and a judge blocked them from going into effect. The judge found the Trump administra­tion did not follow proper procedures for issuing the rules. An appeals court agreed, and the administra­tion appealed to the Supreme Court to step in, as did the Little Sisters of the Poor. The order of Roman Catholic nuns had been instrument­al in challengin­g the Obama administra­tion rules.

 ?? [ANDREW HARNIK/ THE ASSOCIATED PRESS] ?? The Supreme Court is seen on Monday, in Washington.
[ANDREW HARNIK/ THE ASSOCIATED PRESS] The Supreme Court is seen on Monday, in Washington.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States