Backers Of Cost-Free Coverage For Birth Control Fault Legal Challenges

[rug]

03:26 pm
May 25, 2012
by Julie Rovner

You know all those lawsuits now pending around the country charging that the Obama administration's rule requiring most health insurance plans to offer no-cost contraception is a violation of religious freedom?

Well, a whole bunch of supporters of the rule are chiming in now to say that argument has no legal merit.

The dozen new suits, representing some 43 Catholic dioceses, universities and charities "have made a splash by virtue of their number, but when you take a moment to actually look at them, there's nothing to see," Sarah Lipton-Lubet, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in a blog post. "The rule is constitutional, it violates no federal law, and it's incredibly important for women."

Lipton-Lubet is talking about the rules issued in January (and amended in February to address the religious backlash) that require prescription contraception and sterilization services to be available without additional copays as part of most health insurance packages.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/05/25/153714981/backers-of-cost-free-coverage-for-birth-control-fault-legal-challenges

[cbayer]

1. The legal fees must be astounding.

If they have no case, why are they doing this?

[rug]

2. I think they're trying to draw a starker comparison between the earlier cases and this.

The earlier cases established that in most areas religious employers cannot claim religious exemption. The way these are framed, I think they're trying to establish that, even so, when the dispute is over a core religious belief, the state cannot compel compliance, that the earlier cases did not reach that far and that the attempt to do so is unconstitutional.

They're going all in.

On the facts, as I know them, I don't think they'll get there.

I'm not so sure about on the law. They're definitely aiming for a sharp confrontation between federal regulatory power and the First Amendment. I'll have to track down the pleadings.

The other reason is that there's an expectation that, between the 43 lawsuits and the publicity and the election, the Administration may revise the HHS rule.

Just my opinion.

[cbayer]

3. Without strong public support to revise the rule, I don't see any incentive for

the Admin to revise it.

It just looks like another bad move that further alienates members of the church, particularly women.

[rug]

4. That's why they're framing it as religious infringement.

He who defines the argument wins the argument.

[rug]

5. Here's a case in point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/opinion/religious-freedom-an-american-bishops-view.html