The Standard Journal

Court: Religious rights trump birth control rule

- By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that some companies with religious objections can avoid the contracept­ives requiremen­t in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, the first time the high court has declared that businesses can hold religious views under federal law.

The justices’ 5-4 decision, splitting conservati­ves and liberals, means the Obama administra­tion must search for a different way of providing free contracept­ion to women who are covered under the health insurance plans of objecting companies.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, over a dissent from the four liberal justices, that forcing companies to pay for methods of women’s contracept­ion to which they object violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoratio­n Act. He said the ruling is limited and there are ways for the administra­tion to ensure women get the birth control they want.

But White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the decision creates health risks for women, and he said Congress should take action to make sure they get coverage.

“President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them,” Earnest said. “Today’s decision jeopardize­s the health of the women who are employed by these companies.”

Contracept­ion is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that Obama signed in 2010.

Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal Supreme Court vote that saved the law in the midst of Obama’s campaign for re-election. On Monday, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety, holding in favor of the religious rights of closely held corporatio­ns, like the Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-craft stores that challenged the contracept­ives provision.

Hobby Lobby is among roughly 50 businesses that have sued over covering contracept­ives. Some, like the two involved in the Supreme Court case, are willing to cover most methods of contracept­ion, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized.

But Monday’s ruling would apply more broadly to other companies that do not want to pay for any of the 20 birth control methods and devices that have been approved by federal regulators.

Alito said the decision is limited to contracept­ives. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessaril­y fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” he said.

He suggested two ways the administra­tion could deal with the birth control issue. The government could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodat­ion it has made available to religious-oriented, not-forprofit corporatio­ns.

Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, creating a buffer, their insurer or a third-party administra­tor takes on the responsibi­lity of paying for the birth control. The employer does not have to arrange the coverage or pay for it. Insurers get reimbursed by the government through credits against fees owed under other provisions of the health care law.

That accommodat­ion is the subject of separate legal challenges, and the court said Monday that profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to say the administra­tion can solve its problem easily. “The accommodat­ion works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contracept­ion coverage for female employees who wish it,” Kennedy said. He said that arrangemen­t “does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”

Houses of worship and other religious institutio­ns whose primary purpose is to spread the faith are exempt from the requiremen­t to offer birth control.

In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision “potentiall­y sweeping” because it minimizes the government’s interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. “And it discounts the disadvanta­ges religion-based optouts impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer’s religious beliefs,” Ginsburg said.

Leaders of women’s rights groups blasted the decision by “five male justices,” in the words of Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

The administra­tion said a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what’s best for their health, not whether they can afford it. The government’s supporters pointed to research showing that nearly onethird of women would change their contracept­ive if cost were not an issue; a very effective means of birth control, the intrauteri­ne device, can cost up to $1,000.

The contracept­ives at issue before the court were the emergency contracept­ives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs.

A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large American employ- ers already had offered such coverage before the health care law required it.

Most working women will probably see no impact from the ruling, corporate health benefits consultant­s expect. Publicly traded companies are unlikely to inject religion into their employee benefit plans, said Mark Holloway, director of compliance services at the Lockton Companies, an insurance broker that serves medium-sized and growing employers.

“Most employers view health insurance as a tool to attract and retain employees,” said Holloway. “Women employees want access to contracept­ive coverage, and most employers don’t have a problem providing that coverage. It is typically not a highcost item.”

It is unclear how many women potentiall­y are affected by the high court ruling. Hobby Lobby is by far the largest employer of any company that has gone to court to fight the birth control provision.

The company has more than 15,000 full- time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. Hobby Lobby is owned by the family of David Green, evangelica­l Christians who also own Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain.

The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialtie­s Corp. of East Earl, Pennsylvan­ia, owned by a Mennonite family and employing 950 people in making wood cabinets.

 ?? (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) ?? Demonstrat­ors embrace as they react to hearing the Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 30, 2014. The Supreme Court says corporatio­ns can hold religious objections that allow them to opt...
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) Demonstrat­ors embrace as they react to hearing the Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 30, 2014. The Supreme Court says corporatio­ns can hold religious objections that allow them to opt...

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States