Obama Administration Says It’s Revising Birth Control Benefit Accommodation


Read more of our coverage on the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases here.

The Obama administration has announced it is revising the accommodation to the contraception benefit in the Affordable Care Act available to religiously affiliated nonprofits.

The statement was made in a legal brief filed by the Department of Justice with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit as part of a series of cases filed by groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, which argue that complying with the accommodation process set out by the administration is itself a burden on their religious rights and a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The current process requires qualifying religious organizationsto complete a form notifying the administration that they object to providing health insurance plans that offer coverage for contraception. Once that form is completed and filed with the administration, a third-party insurance administrator steps in to provide the insurance coverage for those employees or students who want it.

But at the beginning of July, the Roberts Court threw that accommodation into question by issuing a temporary order that allowed Wheaton College—an evangelical Christian college in Illinois that’s challenging the accommodation—to both avoid providing insurance plans that include birth control coverage and complying with the accommodation process. While that order was not a final ruling on the merits of the accommodation, its effect can be seen in the other pending challenges, like the Little Sisters of the Poor and the administration’s statement that it will be making further adjustments to that process.

“The Wheaton College injunction does not reflect a final Supreme Court determination that RFRA requires the government to apply the accommodations in this manner,” the administration wrote in its brief. “Nevertheless, the Departments responsible for implementing the accommodations have informed us that they have determined to augment the regulatory accommodation process in light of the Wheaton College injunction and that they plan to issue interim final rules within a month. We will inform the Court when the rules are issued.”

When completed, those rules will reportedly provide an alternative way for an objecting religious nonprofit to notify the administration of its objection.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jessica Mason Pieklo on twitter: @hegemommy

  • BelligerentBruncher

    Obamacare is a disaster. If you’re going to socialize medicine, then do it. Don’t keep pushing this ridiculous public/private regulated insurance half-assery.

    • Shan

      I agree that socialized medicine (or even single payer) would be way better than the ACA. The “ridiculous public/private regulated insurance half-assery” of the ACA, however, is the best we were going to get at the moment considering our current social climate. It’s miles better than what we had before but light years behind the type of national healthcare (NHS) we could have had for the past nearly 70 years like they’ve had in the UK.

      • P. McCoy

        After WWll, the US failed to enact the socialized medicine that other first world countries perfected or enacted because Whites, especially Southern Whites recoiled at the idea of Blacks having a benefit that they thought that racially that they did not deserve. Now, we have religious and political conservatives who have decided that in the goals of ” saving babies and curtailing women’s sexual promiscuity as well as stopping perversities like ‘lesbianism / homosexuality’ ,” they must stop the intial steps into universal healthcare.

        If the United States had accomodated racial/religious extremists in the 1960s like we are accommodating religious objecters to univeral healthcare now, we might still have de facto apartheid in this country. Accomodating religious groups does not work;

  • StealthGaytheist

    FFS if filling out a form is too much of a burden you aren’t competent to be running a business/organization. These zealots have been given more than enough accommodations already.

    • Shan

      The “substantial burden” is that their repeated attempts to discriminate against women are getting reasonable work-arounds and they have a great big mad about it. Like a 2yo holding their breath.

      There should never have been any exemptions in the first place.

  • fiona64

    If you can’t fill out a frigging form, how do you expect to run a business?