An analysis of the zubik versus burwell case in relation to the affordable care act
Burwell v hobby lobby
This is the case in the never-ending fight over abortion restrictions in the states, where advocates file cert petition after cert petition in part to keep a particular narrative before the justices. Mar 29 Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees. Figure 4: Share of Nonprofit Firms Offering Health Insurance Self-Certifying as a Religiously Affiliated Organization Objecting to Contraceptives, by Size, If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the religiously affiliated nonprofits, religious objectors in other contexts may be allowed to block the conduct of the government or third parties to fill in the gap left by the objector. In addition to the current nonprofit cases that are being considered by the Court, there is other litigation by both employers and employees of organizations that are challenging the contraception coverage provisions. Justice Ginsburg pointed out that this may have been true under the initial accommodation rules but was no longer true, but Mr. The Government contends that it is federal law that requires the insurance issuer or the third party administrator to provide this coverage. There is little, if anything, distinguishing the Trump administration and the Little Sisters when it comes to a desire to give employers seemingly endless power to restrict the rights of their employees, including the right to non-discriminatory health care benefits. Grandfathered plans are not subject to the preventive services mandate, but small business that offer insurance are, and individual self-employed or unemployed individuals can only purchase coverage, which they must generally due under the individual responsibility requirement, that covers contraceptives. He then pressed further at length with his argument that the government simply could not assert a compelling interest with respect to the petitioners here because so many women are excluded from the protection of the mandate under all of the exceptions to the requirement. David H. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, this already complicated case has taken on yet an additional question. This assertion, though not fully explored at until later in the argument is not correct.
HHS and Dordt College v. There are also the hundreds of students and employees whose access to birth control is being put in danger.
Wheaton college v burwell oyez
However, when a religiously affiliated nonprofit employer with a self-insured plan provides notice of its objection to contraception, the contraceptive coverage regulations designate the plan TPA to function as the plan administrator, as defined in ERISA, but only for the contraceptive coverage benefit which effectively becomes a contraceptive plan. The individual would simply have two insurance cards, as many now do for medical and pharmaceutical coverage. Certain religious groups, however, believe that the use of contraceptives or in the case of some groups, contraceptives that they consider to be abortifacients is sinful. The Administration has appealed this decision to the DC Court of Appeals; the court is holding the case until the Supreme Court issues a decision in Zubik v. But they are easy to manipulate in a results-oriented way. The Chief Justice said this is just a question of who does the paperwork, the petitioners or their employees. More litigation may also emerge from for-profit employers like Hobby Lobby who also receive an accommodation from the requirements. The litigation challenging the contraceptive requirement met mixed results in the federal courts. Justice Ginsburg pointed out that this may have been true under the initial accommodation rules but was no longer true, but Mr. For respondents: Donald B. Affordable Care Act[ edit ] Most Americans are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance. Burwell , does not involve a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, as did National Federation of Independent Business v. Their regular third-party administrator also will not provide—has said it will not provide the coverage if—even if they were to comply with the — form of the notice requirement. Paul Clement, who represented the state challengers in the NFIB case, argued the case for the religious organizations, joined by Noel Francisco.
Under the rules issued by the Obama Administration inreligious nonprofit organizations do not have to provide contraceptive coverage, but do have to either fill out a government form or write a letter stating that they object and telling the government who their insurer is so the government can arrange for contraceptive coverage to be provided.
The case was dismissed by U.
You can view the original report on its website. There is little, if anything, distinguishing the Trump administration and the Little Sisters when it comes to a desire to give employers seemingly endless power to restrict the rights of their employees, including the right to non-discriminatory health care benefits.
As with most cases before the Supreme Court, the ruling will also likely have implications that go far beyond the issue of contraceptive coverage.
The parties may address other proposals along similar lines, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing. Line Drawing Debates Can the government draw lines between houses of worship and other religious institutions?
In this case, the narrative is that the Little Sisters must still provide contraception benefits to which they object, and their only path out is through a ruling from the Roberts Court striking the birth control benefit entirely.
based on 33 review