Justices wary of 'Obamacare' birth control coverage changes

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By JESSICA GRESKO and MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed concerned Wednesday about the sweep of Trump administration rules that would allow more employers who cite a religious or moral objection to opt out of providing no-cost birth control to women as required by the Affordable Care Act.

The justices were hearing their third day of arguments conducted by telephone because of the coronavirus pandemic. The first of two cases before them Wednesday stemmed from the Obama-era health law, under which most employers must cover birth control as a preventive service, at no charge to women, in their insurance plans.

In 2017, the Trump administration announced it would broaden an exemption to the contraceptive coverage requirement that previously applied to houses of worship, such as churches, synagogues and mosques. But the change was blocked by courts.

The Supreme Court’s four liberal justices suggested they were troubled by the changes, which the government has estimated would cause about 70,000 women, and at most 126,000 women, to lose contraception coverage in one year.

The Supreme Court’s four liberal justices suggested they were troubled by the changes, which the government has estimated would cause about 70,000 women, and at most 126,000 women, to lose contraception coverage in one year.



In this May 4, 2020, photo, the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court's third day of hearing arguments by telephone is its first chance at a high-profile case, this one involving the Affordable Care Act. The justices are hearing a dispute Wednesday about Trump administration rules that would allow more employers who cite a religious or moral objection to opt out of providing no-cost birth control to women. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)


Read more: https://apnews.com/968015f009e5fb04eec6ce041ab1f639

[elleng]

1. 'Chief Justice John Roberts, a key vote on a court split between conservatives and liberals,

suggested that the Trump administration’s reliance on a federal religious freedom law to expand the exemption was “too broad.”

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the conversation from a Maryland hospital where she was being treated for an infection caused by a gallstone, gave the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Noel Franciso, what sounded like a lecture.

“You have just tossed entirely to the wind what Congress thought was essential, that is that women be provided these .... services with no hassle, no cost to them,” said Ginsburg, who is expected to be in the hospital for a day or two. . .

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

That didn’t happen. “Is it really the case that there is no way to resolve those differences?” Roberts asked at one point.'

[bucolic_frolic]

2. "resolve" those differences

yeah Roberts will sequester them away ... government pays from special fund, don't tell the employer.

But what really works is employees work at a business. It's a secular job, even if it's at a church. If it weren't secular, the employees would be clergy.

Religious freedom is not when you tell someone else how to behave in their private life. Religious freedom is when you have the legal right to do as you believe, and worship as you choose, and not have a non-religious entity telling you what to do. To me this is a matter of civil rights and not religious freedom.

[riversedge]

4. MAYBE a bit of hope is there yet. only maybe.

[intheflow]

3. And just like that, The Handmaid's Tale is one step closer to becoming reality.

Behold the buried lead of what the court majority thinks:

"The court’s conservative justices seemed more willing to side with the administration, with Trump appointee Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting the administration’s changes might be considered 'within the bounds of reasonable.'"