Wednesday, June 19, 2024
Hawai'i Free Press

Current Articles | Archives

Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Birth Control: 9th Circuit Refuses to Recognize Religious Objectors
By Selected News Articles @ 10:47 AM :: 7111 Views :: Family, First Amendment, Health Care, Life, Religion

Ninth Circuit Upholds Block on Expanded Exemptions for Birth Control Coverage

by Nicholas Iovino, Court House News, October 22, 2019

SAN FRANCSICO (CN) – Dealing another setback to the Trump administration’s agenda, the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday upheld an injunction barring enforcement of rules that let employers opt out of covering birth control on religious and moral grounds.

Enacted in October 2017, the two rules exempt employers “with sincerely held religious beliefs” from providing contraceptive coverage as required by the 2011 Affordable Care Act, which mandates all women have access to preventative care.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued a preliminary injunction on Jan. 13, blocking the rules from taking effect in 13 states and the District of Columbia. One day later, another federal judge in Philadelphia issued a nationwide injunction.

In its opinion Tuesday, the majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel rejected the Trump administration’s argument that because U.S. Health and Human Services previously exempted churches from the contraceptive mandate in 2013, its new rules exempting all employers with moral or religious objections should be allowed.

“The existence of one exemption does not necessarily justify the authority to issue a different exemption or any other exemption that the agencies decide,” Senior U.S. Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace, a Richard Nixon appointee, wrote for the panel.

Wallace also insisted that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 did not clearly authorize executive agencies to make regulations aimed at protecting religious freedoms.

“Instead, RFRA appears to charge the courts with determining violations,” Wallace wrote.

Wallace, a 47-year veteran of the court, found the Trump administration’s exemptions contradict the congressional intent of the Affordable Care Act – to ensure “all women have access to preventative care.”

The senior circuit judge wrote that Congress already sought to balance the competing interests of employers with religious objections and women in need of preventative care when it passed the Affordable Care Act in 2011.

“The agencies cannot reverse that legislatively chosen balance through rulemaking,” he wrote.

The panel also found states would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction because they would incur extra costs providing birth control to women who are denied coverage. U.S. Health and Human Services estimated that between 31,700 and 120,000 women nationwide would lose some coverage as a result of the new regulations.

U.S. Circuit Judge Susan Graber, a Bill Clinton appointee, joined Wallace’s opinion.

Dissenting, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld argued the panel should have dismissed the case because the Third Circuit’s July 12 decision to uphold a nationwide injunction against these same rules made the case moot.

“Nothing we say or do in today’s decision has any practical effect on the challenged regulation,” Kleinfeld wrote. “We are racing to shut a door that has already been shut.”

The George H.W. Bush appointee further insisted that the contraceptive mandate was a regulation invented by the Obama administration, not a requirement of the Affordable Care Act.

“Congress delegated to the executive branch the entire matter of ‘such additional preventive care and screenings’ as the executive agencies might choose to provide for,” Kleinfeld wrote.

Plaintiffs who sued to block the rules include the states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state and the District of Columbia.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra praised the decision in a statement Tuesday.

“Once again, our courts have blocked the Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to trample on women’s rights,” Becerra said.

A Health and Human Services spokesperson declined to comment.


TEXT "follow HawaiiFreePress" to 40404

Register to Vote


Aloha Pregnancy Care Center


Antonio Gramsci Reading List

A Place for Women in Waipio

Ballotpedia Hawaii

Broken Trust

Build More Hawaiian Homes Working Group

Christian Homeschoolers of Hawaii

Cliff Slater's Second Opinion

DVids Hawaii


Fix Oahu!

Frontline: The Fixers

Genetic Literacy Project

Grassroot Institute

Hawaii Aquarium Fish Report

Hawaii Aviation Preservation Society

Hawaii Catholic TV

Hawaii Christian Coalition

Hawaii Cigar Association

Hawaii ConCon Info

Hawaii Debt Clock

Hawaii Defense Foundation

Hawaii Family Forum

Hawaii Farmers and Ranchers United

Hawaii Farmer's Daughter

Hawaii Federation of Republican Women

Hawaii History Blog

Hawaii Jihadi Trial

Hawaii Legal News

Hawaii Legal Short-Term Rental Alliance

Hawaii Matters

Hawaii Military History

Hawaii's Partnership for Appropriate & Compassionate Care

Hawaii Public Charter School Network

Hawaii Rifle Association

Hawaii Shippers Council

Hawaii Together


Hiram Fong Papers

Homeschool Legal Defense Hawaii

Honolulu Navy League

Honolulu Traffic

House Minority Blog

Imua TMT

Inouye-Kwock, NYT 1992

Inside the Nature Conservancy

Inverse Condemnation

July 4 in Hawaii

Land and Power in Hawaii

Lessons in Firearm Education

Lingle Years

Managed Care Matters -- Hawaii

Missile Defense Advocacy

MIS Veterans Hawaii

NAMI Hawaii

National Parents Org Hawaii

NFIB Hawaii News

NRA-ILA Hawaii


OHA Lies

Opt Out Today

Patients Rights Council Hawaii

Practical Policy Institute of Hawaii

Pritchett Cartoons

Pro-GMO Hawaii

Rental by Owner Awareness Assn

Research Institute for Hawaii USA

Rick Hamada Show

RJ Rummel

School Choice in Hawaii

Talking Tax

Tax Foundation of Hawaii

The Real Hanabusa

Time Out Honolulu

Trustee Akina KWO Columns

West Maui Taxpayers Association

What Natalie Thinks

Whole Life Hawaii