By Gregory Curfman
Within the coming months, the constitutional right to abortion, which has been in place for nearly 50 years, is likely to be overturned.
In this light, it is more crucial than ever that women have unfettered access to contraception at no charge. Accordingly, the Biden Administration should act now to return the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive coverage mandate to its status originally intended by Congress in 2010.
By Elizabeth Sepper and John Aloysius Cogan, Jr.
Known for his national injunctions of federal legislation, district court judge Reed O’Connor is at it again. In DeOtte v. Azar [PDF], he issued a permanent injunction granting religious exemptions to two nationwide classes that object to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. Judge O’Connor’s decision is notable for both its expansion of religious exemptions—in contradiction of eight out of nine appellate courts to consider the issue—and its casual disregard for the realities of health insurance markets.
DeOtte is the latest in a series of lawsuits pitting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, against the ACA’s mandate that insurance plans cover FDA-approved contraceptives.
Initially, under the mandate, churches were exempt and religious non-profit employers—like hospitals and universities—received an accommodation. So long as non-profits gave notice of their objection, their plans could exclude contraception. Their employees then would receive contraception coverage through the insurance company or health plan administrator. In 2014, the Supreme Court extended the accommodation to closely held for-profit corporations in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc. Read More
By Greg Curfman, Holly Fernandez Lynch and I. Glenn Cohen
This new blog post by Greg Curfman, Holly Fernandez Lynch and I. Glenn Cohen appears on the Health Affairs Blog:
Everywhere we look, we see the tremendous impact of new legal developments—whether regulatory or statutory, federal or state—on health and health care. These topics range from insurance to intellectual property to religion to professionalism to civil rights. They remain among the most important questions facing Americans today.
This post is the first in a series that will stem from the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event to be held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 30, 2015. The conference, which is free and open to the public, brings together leading experts to review major developments in health law over the previous year, and preview what is to come.
Read the full post here, and register for the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review for free here.
In the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced on Friday proposed rules regarding exemptions for those objecting to the contraceptive mandate. Whenever I read about conscientious objections to health care services made by providers, patients, or indeed, employers, I am reminded that all objections are not equal.
As Mark Wicclair, and others, have written, studies show that medical professionals may object to services based on clinically false information. For instance, certain pharmacists reported that they objected to emergency contraception on the mistaken belief that Plan B was the same thing as RU-486 (mifepristone, or the “abortion pill”). Similarly, a prominent general practitioner admitted to making decisions regarding the prescription of oral contraception without fully understanding the mechanisms of operation that prevent pregnancy. If medical professionals make decisions based on ignorance, one can suspect that lay employers and patients do as well.
This suggests that individuals often lack the information necessary to truly assess their stance on morally controversial services. While the law does (and should) play a role in protecting conscience, it seems unsatisfying when such protection is granted to those holding underdeveloped views, and at the expense of (and detriment to) those seeking legal medical services.
Cross post from healthlawprof blog
Since the likelihood is that many readers of this blog will be asked to comment when the Supreme Court, some time this week, announces its decision in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialty cases here’s a brief refresher and some links. The cases are challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers who choose to offer health insurance to their employees must provide policies that include ten essential benefits-including contraception. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments and read the briefs—it’s likely that whatever opinion is issued will reflect at least some of the arguments presented to the Court.
This case is about the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers who offer their employees health insurance must include ten essential benefits, including contraception. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are privately held, for-profit companies whose owners have sincerely held religious objections to providing four specific kinds of contraception. They believe these contraceptives terminate rather than prevent pregnancy. Many religious organizations and companies have gotten exemptions to these requirements, but this case considers whether private, for-profit companies should qualify as well.
The cases raise three major issues: