Friday, January 24, 2014

10:19 PM

By Unknown

In: , , ,

No comments

In Nuns' Suit, Justices Block Key Mandate in Health Law - New York Times

HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:42:55 GMT Server: Apache Set-Cookie: NYT-S=0MOZ7vC0h8ZsDDXrmvxADeHJXKjGMfd6LXdeFz9JchiAIUFL2BEX5FWcV.Ynx4rkFI; expires=Sun, 23-Feb-2014 22:42:55 GMT; path=/; domain=.nytimes.com Location: http://ift.tt/1gaax6w Content-Length: 0 nnCoection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: Apache Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Length: 28598 Accept-Ranges: bytes Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:42:55 GMT X-Varnish: 1646860733 Age: 0 Via: 1.1 varnish Connection: keep-alive X-Cache: MISS






U.S. |Justices Extend Order Blocking Contraception Mandate for Nuns



http://nyti.ms/LS6az2


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday extended a temporary order from Justice Sonia Sotomayor barring the Obama administration from enforcing a part of the Affordable Care Act against an order of nuns.


The health law requires most employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception. The nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor said the requirement is offensive to their religious beliefs.


An accommodation allowing them to opt out of the requirement — by issuing a certification to an insurance company to offer the coverage independently — also made them complicit in immoral conduct, the nuns said.


In an order Friday, the Supreme Court said that the administration must not enforce the contraceptive coverage requirement against the nuns while the case is pending before a federal appeals court. In addition, the Supreme Court said that the Little Sisters “need not use the form prescribed by the government” to qualify for an exemption.


Related Coverage


On Dec. 31, just hours before the requirement took effect, Justice Sotomayor had temporarily blocked enforcement of that part of the law against the nuns and some affiliated groups.


According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the nuns and other challengers to the requirement, preliminary injunctions had been granted in the lower courts in almost all of 20 similar cases. Justice Sotomayor acted after the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, declined to issue an injunction.


The nuns, who operate nursing homes for poor people in the United States and around the world, provide health benefits to employees through a “church plan” that is exempt from federal regulations that apply to most employer-sponsored insurance, the administration said. The nuns, their health plan and the company that administers the plan will not be required to cover birth control, the administration said in urging the Supreme Court to dissolve Justice Sotomayor’s stay.


The Little Sisters “need only self-certify that they are nonprofit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services,” the administration said on Jan. 3 in a brief filed with the Supreme Court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.


A lawyer for the nuns disagreed.


“The government demands that the Little Sisters of the Poor sign a permission slip for abortion drugs and contraceptives, or pay millions in fines,” said the lawyer, Mark L. Rienzi, of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “The sisters believe that doing that violates their faith, and that they shouldn’t be forced to divert funds from the poor, elderly and dying people they’ve devoted their lives to serve.”


The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a pair of cases from for-profit corporations that object to the contraception requirement and are not covered by the certification accommodation available to groups affiliated with religious organizations. (Religious groups like churches are entirely exempt from the contraception coverage requirement.)


The cases — Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354, and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 — are likely to be argued in March and decided by June.


The two companies say the contraception coverage requirement gives them three unpalatable options: They can pay for insurance coverage that their owners say they find objectionable; they can pay penalties for failing to do so; or they can drop coverage entirely and pay a different penalty.


The Justice Department has said that for-profit companies are not protected by the religious freedom law, and that the contraception coverage requirement does not impose a substantial burden on them.


When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases in November, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said important public health interests were at stake.


“Our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor,” he said. “The president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women.”


The contraception requirement has been one of the most controversial aspects of the health law since the Obama administration first announced it in mid-2011, along with other requirements it characterized as preventive care. Religious groups opposing abortion have objected especially strongly to the coverage requirement for emergency contraception pills, like Plan B, although most studies show that this particular drug works by preventing fertilization, not by inducing abortion.


In an effort to compromise, the administration said that women who work for nonprofit religious groups that object to birth control could receive separate coverage not paid for by the employers. It refused, however, to offer accommodations to secular businesses whose owners have religious objections to contraception.



Robert Pear contributed reporting.













Source: Top Stories - Google News - http://ift.tt/1eN1xQV

0 comments:

Post a Comment