The Mercury (Pottstown, PA)

Court: Some companies can refuse birth control

- By Jessica Gresko

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 both liberal and conservati­ve justices ruling 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 headline-making Supreme Court decisions go against its positions.

In one, 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 Thursday whether Congress and the Manhattan district attorney can see the president’s taxes and other financial records he has fought hard to keep private.

On Wednesday, White House spokeswoma­n Kayleigh McEnany joined conservati­ve groups in cheering the court’s contracept­ion decision. “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 healthcare 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.

“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.

Initially, churches, synagogues and mosques were exempt from the contracept­ive coverage requiremen­t. The Obama administra­tion also created a way by which religiousl­y affiliated organizati­ons including hospitals, universiti­es and charities could opt out of paying for contracept­ion, but women on their health plans would still get no-cost birth control. Some groups complained the opt-out process itself violated their religious beliefs, and years of legal wrangling followed.

After Trump took office, officials announced changes. Under a new policy issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, more categories of employers, including publicly traded companies, can opt out of providing nocost birth control to women by claiming religious objections. The policy also allows some employers, though not publicly traded companies, to raise moral objections and do the same.

The changes were blocked by courts after New Jersey and Pennsylvan­ia challenged them.

Future administra­tions could attempt to alter the Trump administra­tion rules. And two liberal justices who sided with the administra­tion, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, suggested the legal fight over the administra­tion’s changes may continue.

Pennsylvan­ia Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement after the ruling, “This fight is not over.”

Separately Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with two Catholic schools in California in a decision underscori­ng that certain employees of religious schools can’t sue for employment discrimina­tion.

 ??  ??
 ?? PATRICK SEMANSKY - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ?? Tom Alexander holds a cross as he prays prior to rulings outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 8. The Supreme Court is siding with two Catholic schools in a ruling that underscore­s that certain employees of religious schools, hospitals and social service centers can’t sue for employment discrimina­tion.
PATRICK SEMANSKY - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Tom Alexander holds a cross as he prays prior to rulings outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 8. The Supreme Court is siding with two Catholic schools in a ruling that underscore­s that certain employees of religious schools, hospitals and social service centers can’t sue for employment discrimina­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States