U.S. Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration Birth Control Exemptions

REUTERS/Eric Gaillard

A federal appeals court on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing new rules allowing employers to obtain exemptions from an Obamacare requirement they provide health insurance that covers women’s birth control.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld a nationwide injunction that blocked the implementation of rules allowing employers with religious and moral objections to seek exemptions from the 2010 healthcare law’s requirement.

The three-judge panel agreed with Democratic state attorneys general from Pennsylvania and New Jersey pursuing the case that the rules issued by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury had “serious substantive problems.”

The lawsuit was one of several by Democratic state attorneys general challenging the rules, which targeted a requirement in the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, former Democratic President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

The contraceptive mandate required employer-provided health insurance include coverage for birth control with no co-payment.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro on Twitter said the ruling would protect women’s access to contraceptive care.

Republican President Donald Trump’s administration itself has estimated up to 126,400 women nationally would lose contraceptive coverage due to their employers taking advantage of the exemptions.

Kelly Laco, spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department, which defended the rules in court, said it was disappointed. “Religious organizations should not be forced to violate their mission and deeply-held beliefs,” she said.

The appellate ruling upheld a nationwide injunction issued in January by a federal judge in Philadelphia. Another judge in California has blocked the rules’ enforcement in 14 states and the District of Columbia.

In Friday’s decision, U.S. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz, writing for the panel, said the administration lacked good cause to forgo a requirement to provide the public notice and the chance to comment on interim versions of the rules it adopted in 2017.

The administration had cited an urgent need to alleviate the harm faced by employers with religious objections.

But Shwartz said its “desire to address the purported harm to religious objections does not ameliorate the need to follow appropriate procedures.”

She said government agencies showed a “lack of open-mindedness” when they later adopted similar, final rules in 2018, which were also not authorized by Obamacare.

A nationwide preliminary injunction preventing the rules’ enforcement was necessary, she said, to protect the states from against the potential costs they would face if women’s employers refused to provide insurance that covered birth control.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; editing by Tom Brown)

What do you think?

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kim
Member

They did the right thing. I understand the companies have religious views but they don’t control the lives and health or views of their employees. A woman’s reproductive health and choice is private and her employer has no right to have any information regarding their birth control. You can’t ask a potential hire about their religion or disqualify a person for employment because of their religious views- and you would have no way of knowing what prescription medicine a Dr may prescribe to a patient. There should be no controversy. It’s discrimination of a matter they should have no knowledge… Read more »

Noah_Vaile
Guest
Noah_Vaile

Who appointed these judges?
satan?

MariaRose Randazzo
Member

What does giving coverage for healthcare for women to cover birth control have to do with this ruling? Obviously this judge has no idea how positive having access to birth control is to women’s healthcare.

James
Member

Yet another Federal Court TELLING the President what he can and cannot do. WHY do we have elections except to elect a President who is required to appoint Judges who then will DICTATE to the Country from the bench? The President would then only be required to live in the White House for 4 to 8 years; send his family, friends, neighbors and possible acquaintances (RE: #44) on taxpayer funded vacations in military aircraft around the World and make approved speeches to foreign Governments (RE: #42 & #44) for a little extra spending money. Something wrong with this picture.

Morte206
Member

Good.
Though I do wonder: What about mens birth control?

Exclusive: Pentagon Races to Track U.S. Rare Earths Output Amid China Trade Dispute

Hawaii Governor Declares Emergency for Maui Wildfires