News

Justices order new briefs in birth control mandate case


 

References

Mark Goldfeder

Mark Goldfeder

“The way this case has often been portrayed in the media, it has been about a clash between religious liberty and reproductive rights,” Mr. Goldfeder said in an interview. “As became clear in the arguments today, that is a false dichotomy, and a false narrative.”

Foreshadowing their latest move, justices and attorneys spent ample time arguing over whether an alternative paperwork process could satisfy both parties. Justice Alito asked whether it was possible that patients who do not get contraceptive coverage from their religious nonprofit employer could obtain a free contraceptive-­only policy through the ACA insurance exchanges.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. dismissed that proposal.

“It’s not a less restrictive alternative because it has precisely the problem Congress was trying to overcome in the preventive services provision,” he said. “That [proposal] is not equally effective at achieving the government’s interest, because the whole point of this provision is that you get this care from your regular doctor as part of your regular health care without any barriers, including any co­pay barriers.”

The justices have several options in deciding the case, including choosing to rehear arguments at a later date. The Feb. 13 death of Justice Antonin Scalia could also mean a 4-4 split decision. If such a division occurs, the lower court rulings would stand.

“The impact will be that women employed by nonprofits in the 8th Circuit will be denied contraception coverage, but that women in all the other circuits will receive the coverage,” Ms. Hamilton said. “And we’ll be back to not having an answer from the Supreme Court. So all of the machinery that went into play for consideration of this case ... all of the entities that worked on it, will have to repeat itself. It will turn the whole exercise into something of a joke.”

In the two-page order issued March 29, the justices encouraged both parties to suggest ways in which the plaintiffs would have no legal obligation to provide contraceptive coverage, would not have to pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to insurers, the government, or employees. New briefs are due by April 20.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Pages

Recommended Reading

Core outcomes needed for endometriosis research
MDedge Family Medicine
Q&A: Identifying gaps in the treatment of endometriosis
MDedge Family Medicine
Obesity, oral contraceptive use are risk factors for cerebral venous thrombosis in women
MDedge Family Medicine
ACOG releases new Choosing Wisely list
MDedge Family Medicine
Supreme Court to hear debate over contraception coverage mandate
MDedge Family Medicine
Case may be building for annual CA-125 ovarian cancer screening
MDedge Family Medicine
Condom use low among female teens using LARC
MDedge Family Medicine
Fibroids, endometriosis linked to chemical exposures cost Europe $1.5 billion a year
MDedge Family Medicine
Observation might be best in advanced-stage, low-grade ovarian CA
MDedge Family Medicine
Endometriosis linked to higher CHD risk
MDedge Family Medicine