Supreme Court OKs exemptions to Obama-era birth control policy

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of allowing certain employers to opt out of providing no-cost contraceptive. The ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, but critics say it could leave tens of thousands of women without access to affordable birth control.

Andrew Harnik/AP
The Supreme Court ruled on July 8, 2020 in favor of a Trump administration policy allowing employers to op-out of covering workers' birth control based on religious or moral grounds. The president counts on support from evangelicals and other Christian groups.

More employers who cite religious or moral grounds can decline to offer cost-free birth control coverage to their workers, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, upholding Trump administration rules that could leave more than 70,000 women without free contraception.

The high court ruled 7-2 for the administration, which had made a policy change to allow some employers to opt out of providing the no-cost birth control required by the Obama-era health care law. Lower courts had previously blocked the Trump administration's changes.

The ruling is a big election-year win for President Donald Trump, who counts on heavy support from evangelicals and other Christian groups for votes and policy backing.

The administration has the statutory authority to craft the rules, including “the contemporaneously issued moral exemption,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a majority of the court.

The government had previously estimated that the rule changes would cause about 70,000 women, and at most 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.

Separately on Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with two Catholic schools in California in a decision underscoring that certain employees of religious schools, hospitals, and social service centers can’t sue for employment discrimination. That ruling, too, was by 7-2, with Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in both cases.

The court had ruled unanimously in 2012 that the Constitution prevents ministers from suing their churches for employment discrimination, but at that time the justices didn’t specifically define who counts as a minister. The case decided on Wednesday involved lay teachers whose contracts had not been renewed.

In the birth control case, two liberal justices who sided with the administration, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, nonetheless suggested the legal fight over the Trump administration changes may not be over. Future administrations could also attempt changes.

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

That opt-out process was the subject of a 2016 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.

After the Trump administration took office, 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. But the change was blocked by courts after New Jersey and Pennsylvania challenged it.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP reporter Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.

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.