Feature

Courts block Trump from eroding contraceptive mandate


 

Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration from weakening the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate in two separate orders that bar the President from letting more entities claim exemptions.

On Jan. 14, U.S. District Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a temporary nationwide ban on two rules that would have allowed an expanded group of employers and insurers to object to providing contraception coverage on either religious or moral grounds. The regulations, announced Nov. 7, 2018, were scheduled to take effect Jan. 14. The day before, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam for the Northern District of California issued a similar temporary ban, but his order applied only to the 13 plaintiff states in the case, plus the District of Columbia.

Hormonal IUD Robert Boston/Washington University

While Pennsylvania and New Jersey are the only plaintiffs in the Judge Beetlestone case, she wrote that a nationwide injunction is required to protect numerous citizens from losing contraceptive coverage and resulting in “significant, direct, and proprietary harm” to states in the form of increased state-funded contraceptive services and increased costs associated with unintended pregnancies. Judge Gilliam provided similar reasoning in his Jan. 13 order, writing that the 13 plaintiff states have proven that rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would cause women to lose employer-sponsored contraceptive coverage, resulting in economic harm to the states.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a plaintiff in the second case, said Judge Gilliam’s ruling will stop the Trump administration from denying millions of women and families access to co-pay birth control guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act.

“The law couldn’t be clearer – employers have no business interfering in women’s health care decisions,” Mr. Becerra said in the statement. “[The] court ruling stops another attempt by the Trump administration to trample on women’s access to basic reproductive care.”

At press time, the Trump administration officials had responded publicly to the court orders. The administration previously said the new policies would “better balance the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions.” HHS estimated that the rules would affect no more than 200 employers.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Malpractice and pain management
Clinician Reviews
OTP: Pipe Dream, Smoke Screen, or the Right Thing?
Clinician Reviews
Education: The Mediating Factor in Gun Violence?
Clinician Reviews
Is fish oil’s heart benefit a fish tale?
Clinician Reviews
Endocrine Society raises concerns about FDA’s “safe” classification of bisphenol A in food containers
Clinician Reviews
Marijuana: Know the Rules in Your State
Clinician Reviews
Are We Overproducing NPs and PAs?
Clinician Reviews
HIV prevention: Mandating insurance coverage of PrEP
Clinician Reviews
Class-action suit filed against ABIM over MOC
Clinician Reviews
Texas judge strikes down ACA putting law in peril — again
Clinician Reviews