Justice Sotomayor blocks Obamacare contraception mandate

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor late Tuesday issued a temporary injunction preventing the government from requiring a group of nuns to comply with the contraceptive mandate included in 'Obamacare.' The mandate took effect at midnight.

AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File
In this file photo, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor smiles after receiving an honorary degree during commencement at Yale University. Sotomayor issued an order allowing a group of Colorado nuns not to comply with the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

President Obama’s besieged Affordable Care Act has suffered another setback with a US Supreme Court justice issuing a temporary injunction late Tuesday preventing enforcement of the law’s contraception mandate against a group of Roman Catholic nuns who provide care to low-income elderly patients.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued the injunction shortly before the ACA mandate was set to take effect at midnight on New Year’s Eve.

It proved to be a busy evening for Justice Sotomayor, who also considered a stay request from Utah officials in a case involving same-sex marriage, while also presiding over the famous ball drop in New York City’s Times Square in the final countdown to the New Year.

“It is ordered that respondents are temporarily enjoined from enforcing against applicants the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Sotomayor wrote in her brief order.

She gave the Obama administration until Friday at 10 a.m. to file a response.

At issue is a controversial provision of the ACA that requires employers to provide their workers with health insurance that offers a full range of free contraceptives, including drugs that some religious adherents believe cause abortions.

More than 90 lawsuits have been filed by corporations, nonprofit groups, and religious-affiliated organizations seeking to block the contraception mandate. The groups say the requirement that they pay for workers' access to such contraceptive methods violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Obama administration exempted churches and other religious organizations from compliance with that aspect of the law. And after objections, the administration created an opt-out provision to help insulate a wider range of religious-affiliated groups from the mandate.

But that has not satisfied many religious objectors.

Among them is the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged in Denver. In September, the group filed a federal lawsuit complaining that on Jan. 1 it would be subject to the contraceptive mandate and thus potentially liable to pay millions of dollars in fines to the Internal Revenue Service for failure to comply with the government’s demands.

A federal judge refused to issue an injunction blocking enforcement of the law, and a federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld that decision.

The appeals court panel said that Little Sisters of the Poor could opt out of the mandate and that because the group’s health insurance is considered a “church plan,” the Little Sisters would not be subject to fines or penalties for noncompliance.

“Therefore, there is no enforceable obligation … for any of the Plaintiffs to provide any of the objectionable coverage,” the appeals court said.

Lawyers for the Little Sisters filed an 11th-hour appeal to Sotomayor, who granted the temporary injunction.

“We are delighted that the Supreme Court has issued this order protecting the Little Sisters,” said Mark Rienzi, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Little Sisters in the case.

“The government has lots of ways to deliver contraceptives to people. It doesn’t need to force nuns to participate,” he said in a statement.

Later this year the US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two cases testing whether President Obama’s health-care reform law violates the religious rights of for-profit company owners and their corporations by forcing them to provide their employees with certain contraceptives that offend the owners’ religious beliefs.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.