RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Mandak writes: "An appeals court has ruled that the birth control coverage required by federal health care reforms does not violate the rights of several religious groups because they can seek reasonable accommodations."

Reproductive rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court. (photo: ProgressivePolitics.net)
Reproductive rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court. (photo: ProgressivePolitics.net)


Appeals Court Rules That Birth Control Coverage in Affordable Care Act Doesn't Violate Religious Group Rights

By Joe Mandak, Associated Press

13 February 15

 

n appeals court has ruled that the birth control coverage required by federal health care reforms does not violate the rights of several religious groups because they can seek reasonable accommodations.

Two western Pennsylvania Catholic dioceses and a private Christian college had challenged the birth control coverage mandates and won lower-court decisions. However, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court ruling Wednesday said the reforms place "no substantial burden" on the religious groups and therefore don't violate their First Amendment rights.

All three groups — the college and the Pittsburgh and Erie dioceses — are mulling whether to appeal to the entire 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Such a ruling should cause deep concern for anyone who cares about any First Amendment rights, especially the right to teach and practice a religious faith," Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik said in a statement. "This decision says that the church is no longer free to practice what we preach."

At issue is an "accommodation" written into the Affordable Care Act that says religious organizations can opt out of directly providing and paying to cover medical services such groups would consider morally objectionable. In this case, that refers to all contraceptive and abortion services for the Catholic plaintiffs, and contraceptive services like the "week-after" pill and other medical coverage that Geneva College contends violate its anti-abortion teachings. The school in Beaver Falls is affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church.

Justice Department lawyers have argued the accommodation solves the problem because it allows religious groups to opt out of directly providing such coverage. But the plaintiffs contend that merely filing the one-page form, which puts a religious group's objections on record with the government, violates their rights because it still "facilitates" or "triggers" a process that then enables third-party insurers to provide the kind of coverage to which they object.

The appellate opinion written by Judge Marjorie O. Rendell rejects that reasoning.

"Federal law, rather than any involvement by the appellees in filling out or submitting the self-certification form, creates the obligation" for third parties to offer the objected-to coverage, Rendell wrote.

The opinion says the form merely provides a way for the religious groups to avoid being penalized for opting not to directly provide the benefits. But the groups have argued the form does more than that if the third-party providers can't provide the services before the form is filed. That question is expected to be raised in future appeals.

The Catholic plaintiffs raise a second issue. Churches themselves, and their employees, are automatically exempt from the health care mandates. But affiliated organizations — like the college — and charities are not, so the dioceses contend the law essentially divides the church against itself.

The 3rd Circuit, based in Philadelphia, is the fourth federal appeals court to rule that the accommodation is not a burden on the nonprofits' exercise of religion. The other courts that have ruled are based in Chicago, Cincinnati and Washington, D.C. At least four other appellate courts are considering the same issue, and experts on both sides expect the Supreme Court eventually will settle the matter.

The justices could act on a request by the University of Notre Dame as soon as Feb. 23. The earliest the issue could be argued at the Supreme Court is October, and a decision would not be expected until 2016.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN