- Feb 5, 2002
- 182,616
- 66,148
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Obamacare’s ‘contraception mandate’ is nothing more than a backdoor policy imposed without legislative consent.
This week’s ruling against the Trump administration and the Little Sisters of the Poor is the latest salvo in a relentless campaign to impose the “contraceptive mandate” of the Affordable Care Act over sincerely-held religious and moral objections.
On Aug. 13, Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania struck downrules that exempted religious and moralobjectors from the Affordable Care Act’s “contraceptive mandate,” finding them “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pennsylvania v. Trump cries out for a prompt reversal on appeal.
Beetlestone did not dispute the legitimacy of the exemptions. Indeed, she couldn’t. Back in 2020, the Supreme Court, in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, upheld these very rules as a lawful exercise of the Department of Health and Human Services’ authority under the ACA. Instead, Beetlestone claimed the exemptions were not the product of “reasoned decisionmaking,” blindly following the suggestion to do so in Justice Elena Kagan’s concurring opinion.
Rather than follow Kagan’s suggestion, Justice Samuel Alito’s concurring opinion in the case should be the guiding standard for courts and the executive alike. Alito emphasized that RFRA “compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.”
Continued below.
www.ncregister.com
This week’s ruling against the Trump administration and the Little Sisters of the Poor is the latest salvo in a relentless campaign to impose the “contraceptive mandate” of the Affordable Care Act over sincerely-held religious and moral objections.
On Aug. 13, Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania struck downrules that exempted religious and moralobjectors from the Affordable Care Act’s “contraceptive mandate,” finding them “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pennsylvania v. Trump cries out for a prompt reversal on appeal.
Beetlestone did not dispute the legitimacy of the exemptions. Indeed, she couldn’t. Back in 2020, the Supreme Court, in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, upheld these very rules as a lawful exercise of the Department of Health and Human Services’ authority under the ACA. Instead, Beetlestone claimed the exemptions were not the product of “reasoned decisionmaking,” blindly following the suggestion to do so in Justice Elena Kagan’s concurring opinion.
Rather than follow Kagan’s suggestion, Justice Samuel Alito’s concurring opinion in the case should be the guiding standard for courts and the executive alike. Alito emphasized that RFRA “compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.”
Continued below.
Little Sisters of the Poor Face New Legal Assault on Religious Freedom
COMMENTARY: Obamacare’s ‘contraception mandate’ is nothing more than a backdoor policy imposed without legislative consent.
