The Supreme Court Just Made A Big Ruling On Birth Control — Here's What You Need To Know
A CONTRACEPTION INTERVENTION
·Updated:
·

On Monday morning, The Supreme Court issued a ruling in Zubik v. Burwell, which seeks to make it easier for religious non-profits to opt-out of providing birth control, that sent the case back to an appeals court. The case follows 2014's Hobby Lobby decision which expanded the ability of businesses to reject the Affordable Care Act's mandate to provide co-pay-free contraception through insurance. Here's what you need to know.

The Case Revolves Around The Affordable Care Act's Contraceptive Mandate

The Affordable Care Act contains a portion called the contraceptive mandate that orders employer's insurance companies to offer contraception co-pay free. Non-profit religious organizations have had the option to opt-out of that provision through petition, which then places the onus on insurance companies.

If non-profit religious organizations — such as hospitals, charities and higher education institutions – or for-profit organizations with a limited number of shareholders (i.e. "closely held") do not want to pay for employees' contraception for religious reasons, they can fill out a two-page form explaining why it wants to opt out of doing so. From there, the organization's insurer takes over. It can either work with employees directly to provide no-cost contraception coverage or locate a third-party to do so.

[USA Today]


In Zubik v. Burwell, Non-Profit Religious Groups Claimed That The Current Opt-Out Process Is Overly Burdensome

Despite being able to opt-out of the provision, a group of religious non-profits argued that the process still implicates them in providing access to contraception to their employees, which they claim violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Department of Health and Human Services has allowed such nonprofits to opt out of the contraception mandate by submitting written notice… But Bishop Zubik and the other plaintiffs object because, they say, even submitting an opt-out notice makes them "complicit in a grave moral wrong," enabling the birth control that is provided. "We still have to sign off," Bishop Zubik said in a telephone interview. "In reality, we're giving the green light that says we're agreeing that you can provide these services, and that raises the issue that we're being asked to do something that goes against our faith."

[The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]


The Case Is Very Similar To 2014's Landmark Hobby Lobby Case

Many court-watchers see the case a sequel to the landmark Hobby Lobby case of 2014, which ended up expanding the contraceptive mandate opt-out process to private corporations that had religious affiliations. 

Zubik is a sort of sequel to the Hobby Lobby case, in which the then-five conservatives on the Supreme Court sided with a closely held corporation whose religious owners wanted similar exemptions under Obamacare's contraceptive requirements. In light of that decision and regulations developed by the Department of Health and Human Services, the government provided religious groups who aren't otherwise exempt from the law's contraceptive requirement — like churches and synagogues — an accommodation: the form they now object to, which allows the federal government to coordinate coverage for the affected employees with a third-party insurance provider.

[The Huffington Post]


On Monday, The Court Sent Zubik V. Burwell Back To A Lower Court

In a surprise decision, the case was remanded back to a Court of Appeals, ordering the examination of an alternative accommodation.

In sending the case back down to lower courts, the Supreme Court signaled that it believed a compromise could be worked out that didn't involve weighing the larger issues involved in the RFRA challenge. "The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. 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," Monday's opinion said.

[Talking Points Memo]


Some Say The Decision Is A Tactic To Put The Case On Ice Until Next Year When A New Justice Will Be On The Court

Due to the death of Antonin Scalia, the specter of a 4-4 decision was the most likely outcome. Some believe the justices want to wait until next year to take up the case (or a similar one).

On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a brief, three-page opinion that effectively punts the case until next year at the earliest (and, presumably, after someone has been confirmed to fill Justice Scalia's seat). The opinion explicitly "expresses no view on the merits" of Zubik and a raft of related cases.

[Think Progress]

Others Took The Ruling At Face Value — Seeing The Request For Compromise As A Victory For Birth Control Facilitated By Scalia's Death

The Supreme Court had agreed to resolve the lingering legal clash and rule on whether this required coverage put an unfair burden on the religious liberty of their church-based employers. But the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February left the justices split 4-4 on the underlying dispute. That in turn prompted the justices to suggest a compromise. They issued an unusual request for both sides to consider whether the insurance coverage could be provided in a way that did not directly involve the church-based employers.

[The LA Times]

<p>Benjamin Goggin is the News Editor at Digg.&nbsp;</p>

Want more stories like this?

Every day we send an email with the top stories from Digg.

Subscribe