Washington D.C., May 16, 2016 / 08:53 am (CNA).- In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sent the Little Sisters of the Poor HHS mandate case back to the lower courts on Monday, in light of new developments in the case.
“We are very encouraged by the Court’s decision, which is an important win for the Little Sisters. The Court has recognized that the government changed its position,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor.
“It is crucial that the Justices unanimously ordered the government not to impose these fines and indicated that the government doesn’t need any notice to figure out what should now be obvious – the Little Sisters respectfully object,” he continued.
Religious charities including the Little Sisters of the Poor had sued the federal government saying that they were being coerced, under threat of heavy fines, to violate their consciences. They said that despite revisions, the Obama administration’s federal contraception mandate requires them to cooperate in actions they believe to be immoral.
The mandate began as part of the Affordable Care Act, which required coverage for preventative care in employee health plans. The Department of Health and Human Services, in its regulations released after the law was passed, interpreted this to require employer coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and drugs that can cause abortions.
Churches and their immediate affiliates, like schools and parish groups, were exempt from the mandate but religious non-profits, charities, and universities were not. Some large corporations were exempt from the mandate because their health plans that existed before the health care law were “grandfathered” into its regulations.
Heavy fines are the punishment for not complying with the mandate. Many religious institutions objected to complying with the mandate, saying they were being forced to violate their consciences by providing coverage for practices they believed were immoral. They were being coerced to cooperate in such acts, they said.
After the mandate was issued, the government offered an “accommodation” to objecting parties – they could notify the government of their religious objection, and it would then direct their insurer to provide the mandated coverage free-of-charge. The government argued that contraception can be offered without cost because it reduces later costs associated with births and provides “tremendous health benefits” to women.
The Little Sisters and other charities said this “accommodation” still required them to violate their consciences, because they were effectively acting as “gatekeepers” for the contraception coverage. They also voiced concern that because it was still part of their health plan, they would ultimately end up paying for the coverage they found immoral.
A total of more than 300 plaintiffs have sued to challenge the mandate. In the case currently before the court, Zubik v. Burwell, the Little Sisters are joined by other plaintiffs including the Archdiocese of Washington, Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, the pro-life group Priests for Life, and several Christian colleges and universities.
The Supreme Court, in a rare move in the middle of a case, had ordered both parties to come up with alternative solutions, if possible, of guaranteeing both contraceptive coverage for employees and religious freedom protections for the non-profits.
“Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing ‘whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners’,” the court’s statement read.
“Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible.”
The Little Sisters and other plaintiffs, in their brief, outlined an acceptable alternative: when setting up their health plan with their insurer, they would express their wish for a health plan without coverage for the contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-causing drugs. The insurer would take note and offer employees “cost-free contraception coverage” on the side and outside the health plan.
For their part, “the Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures ‘for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage,” the statement read.
Because of the new developments in the case, the court then sent the group cases back to their respective federal courts – the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals.
“Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans “receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage,” the court stated.
The Supreme Court did not say if the government’s mandate and “accommodation” violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under that federal law passed in 1993, if the government action “substantially burdens” a person’s free exercise of religion, the government must establish that it has a “compelling interest” for the action and that it is using the “least-restrictive means” of furthering that interest.
“In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest,” the court stated, leaving that decision for the lower courts.
Article Archive
Breaking: Supreme Court sends Little Sisters' case back to lower court
Related Articles • More Articles
A Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish procession honoring the patroness of Cuba on Sept. 7, 2023. / Credit: Sacred Heart of Jesus parish in Havana, CubaACI Prensa Staff, Mar 28, 2024 / 16:00 pm (CNA).The regime of President Miguel Díaz-Canel in Cuba has prohibited several Holy Week processions in different cities of the country, including the El Vedado area of Havana as well as in Bayamo, a town that was the scene of major protests earlier this month.Last week, ACI Prensa, CNA's Spanish-language news partner, reported on the prohibition of processions in the Diocese of the Most Holy Savior located in the Bayamo-Manzanillo area in the province of Granma, due to the regime's fear that new protests would break out. The prohibition has been extended to the capital, Havana, according to a Catholic priest.In a March 25 Facebook post, Father Lester Zayas, pastor of Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish in the El Vedado business district of Havana, reported that the day before he had been notifie...
The Catholic faithful gathered in the Cenacle in Jerusalem for the Mass of the Lord's Supper that the Franciscan friars celebrated on Holy Thursday, March 28, 2024. The Cenacle is at the center of strong tensions and disputes regarding ownership and rights of access and celebration. An ancient tradition places King David's tomb here and over the centuries Jews and Muslims have leveraged this to first expel the Franciscans and then to prevent Christian worship, which they deemed sacrilegious. / Credit: Marinella BandiniJerusalem, Mar 28, 2024 / 17:15 pm (CNA).On Holy Thursday, the doors of the Cenacle in Jerusalem were opened to welcome the Franciscans of the Custody of the Holy Land. In this "Upper Room," called the Cenacle in the Holy Land, Jesus had his Last Supper, washed his apostles' feet, and instituted the Eucharist. It was here that the Franciscans celebrated the Mass of the Lord's Supper, reenacting those same gestures. (At the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher,...
The Oregon State Capitol in Salem. / Credit: Zack Frank/ShutterstockWashington, D.C. Newsroom, Mar 28, 2024 / 15:00 pm (CNA).The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) is reporting a significant rise in assisted suicide prescriptions and deaths in the state, a move that comes after authorities in 2022 began allowing out-of-state residents to access the lethal services.Since the state's passage of the "Death with Dignity Act" in 1997, assisted suicide numbers have been generally rising there, with a markedly sharp uptick since 2013. OHA on March 20 released its 2023 assisted suicide data summary that reported a considerable increase in suicide prescriptions in 2023. The study found that assisted suicide prescriptions in the state rose from 433 in 2022 to 560 last year.Of those 560 prescriptions, 367 people are known to have died from ingesting the suicide "medications." This is up from the 304 who died from assisted suicide drugs in Oregon in 2022.Over half, or 56%, of the assisted ...