Regulatory Incompetence (and King v. Burwell) Could Save the Nuns

[Draggingtree]

Cato:

AUGUST 25, 2015 8:57AM

 

Regulatory Incompetence (and King v. Burwell) Could Save the Nuns

 

By ILYA SHAPIRO and JOSH BLACKMAN

Obamacare imposes a requirement that employers provide insurance that covers “preventive care” for women, but does not specify what that entails. The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) determined that “preventive care” includes all FDA-approved contraceptives, from condoms to the morning-after pill.

 

While houses of worship were exempted outright from the mandate, other religious orders were not. (And, as we know from the Hobby Lobby case, for-profit employers who object to certain forms of contraceptive don’t have to pay to cover them.) Instead, under an “accommodation” created by HHS and the Departments of Labor and Treasury, an objecting religious organization isn’t required to pay for the offending contraceptives, but they do have to notify HHS, which then modifies their insurance contracts so their insurers cover the objected-to items.

[Draggingtree]

Symposium: Administrative law lessons from King v. Burwell

By Erin Morrow Hawley on Dec 15, 2015 at 3:52 pm

Erin Morrow Hawley is Associate Professor of Law and the University of Missouri School of Law. She filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Independent Women’s Forum in support of the petitioners in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell.

 

After the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell, serious questions regarding the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exist, not only under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment, but also under principles of administrative law. Does the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) receive any deference with respect to its “exemption” for “religious employers” – an exemption that treats religious employers differently based on internal church structure? There are several reasons to think the answer is no.

 

First, this case involves issues of unquestionable significance. The Court has suggested that, when questions such as religion and moral philosophy are involved, courts should be particularly wary of finding an implicit delegation from Congress. This would be especially true here, when the agency has no particular religious accommodation expertise.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/symposium-administrative-law-lessons-from-king-v-burwell/

[Draggingtree]

Symposium: The missing interest in the contraceptive mandate cases — Catholic women

By Leslie Griffin on Dec 16, 2015 at 11:08 am

Leslie C. Griffin is William S. Boyd Professor of Law at UNLV Boyd School of Law.

The Little Sisters of the Poor, who generously provide care to the elderly poor, have appeared as the most sympathetic of the thirty-six religious nonprofit petitioners in seven consolidated Supreme Court cases challenging the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The plaintiffs’ lawyers and some commentators have presented a sad portrait of the good Little Sisters hounded to violate their deepest moral convictions by the big bad federal government. Indeed, former Solicitor General Paul Clement made the pseudo-feminist argument in the Sisters’ cert. petition that the government had unfairly exempted male-run parishes from the mandate while forcing the nuns to comply.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/symposium-the-missing-interest-in-the-contraceptive-mandate-cases-catholic-women/