- Obama military downsizing leaves U.S. too weak to counter global threats, panel finds
- Sen. Tom Coburn vows to slow down budget-busting bills ahead of recess
- Obama fantasizes about more executive power, signs new order on federal contractors
- Clintons call Klein, Halper, Kessler ‘a Hat Trick of despicable actors’: report
- Boehner accuses Obama of ‘legacy of lawlessness’
- Pro-marijuana group claims responsibility for Brooklyn Bridge flag swap
- Young adults shun Obamacare mostly due to cost: survey
- Stabbing attack on transgender girl, 15, was ‘bias motivated,’ police say
- LGBT adults still lean overwhelmingly toward Democratic Party
- Lawmakers rattled by Syria genocide horrors, call on Obama to act
White House urges Supreme Court to reject nuns’ appeal for birth control exemption
Question of the Day
The U.S. government said Friday that a Colorado congregation of Catholic nuns had no reason to seek and obtain an 11th-hour Supreme Court reprieve from an Obamacare rule that requires employers to insure contraception.
Justice Department attorneys filed court papers in the case, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius, that say the plaintiffs get their insurance services from the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, a religiously affiliated administrator that is not required to facilitate contraceptive coverage.
“With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves the relief they seek from this Court — an exemption from the requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision — and the employer-applicants’ employees (and their family members) will not receive contraceptive coverage through the plan’s third-party administrator either,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote. “The application should be denied.”
But the sisters say that even signing a waiver will violate their beliefs by making them complicit in allowing their employees to obtain contraception.
“The fight right now is over this form,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the sisters.
The dispute, in some ways, boils down to perspective — the government says the form lets the sisters opt out of covering contraceptives, while the plaintiffs say it requires them to authorize the coverage.
Justice attorneys pushed back at their arguments by arguing the nun’s group is creating a problem that doesn’t exist.
The church plan at hand is exempt from the mandate, so the plan’s “third-party administrator therefore will be under no legal obligation to provide the coverage after applicants certify that they object to providing it.”
“Given these circumstances, applicants’ concern that they are ‘authorizing others’ to provide coverage lacks any foundation in the facts or the law,” the Justice Department said.
Mr. Rassbach said the government is obfuscating the facts, because one of the third-party administrators that handles pharmacy claims for their plan, Express Scripts, does not hold a religious objection to contraceptives.
Advocates for the nuns had applauded an eleventh-hour order by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor this week to temporarily block a requirement under the Affordable Care Act to insure birth control procedures.
The temporary injunction, issued just hours before Justice Sotomayor helped usher in the new year in New York City’s Times Square, said the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was blocked “from enforcing against [the Little Sisters of the Poor] the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
The Justice Department had until Friday morning to respond, and pro-life groups did not like what they had to say.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, said the administration “once again makes clear its intention to steamroll religious liberty and freedom of conscience, even for an order of nuns singularly dedicated to providing charitable care for the aged and infirm.”
The administration’s attorneys noted that Little Sisters is in a different situation than for-profit entities that sued over the contraception mandate. The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on a pair of cases brought by for-profit companies with religiously devout owners, after the circuit court split on whether how the mandate should apply to them.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Tom Howell Jr. covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Young adults shun Obamacare mostly due to cost: survey
- U.S. attorney warns N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo not to interfere with anti-corruption probes
- Russians are unfazed by the West's response to Putin's actions in Ukraine: poll
- Rep. Tim Murphy: GOP knew HealthCare.gov would be an 'unmitigated disaster'
- Ohio gives Obama a thumbs down, yet Hillary Clinton tops GOP all-stars: poll
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Both parties recognize the Democrats' scam
- Inside the Ring: Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- CIA admits improperly hacking Senate computers in search of Bush-era information
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- HUSAIN: Fleeing Iraqi Christians find safe haven at the Shrine of Imam Ali
- Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- Iraq Christians get meeting with top Obama aide
- 'Big Bang' star Mayim Bialik helps send bulletproof vests to IDF
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world