Skip to comments.LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.
Posted on 07/08/2020 7:25:20 AM PDT by C19fan
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) requires covered employers to provide women with preventive care and screenings without any cost sharing requirements, and relies on Preventive Care Guidelines (Guidelines) supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to determine what preventive care and screenings includes. 42 U. S. C. §300gg13(a)(4). Those Guidelines mandate that health plans provide coverage for all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods. When the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (Departments) incorporated the Guidelines, they also gave HRSA the discretion to exempt religious employers, such as churches, from providing contraceptive coverage. Later, the Departments also promulgated a rule accommodating qualifying religious organizations that allowed them to opt out of coverage by self-certifying that they met certain criteria to their health insurance issuer, which would then exclude contraceptive coverage from the employers plan and provide participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements.
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
Yuuuuuge win. :-)
Good to see this decision.
And interesting to see two normally reliable liberals crossing over.
The opinion is weak, however.
I believe 3 of the 7 say the exemption is allowed. Only 4 say it is required.
Final 3 cases expected tomorrow, THUR
Excellent! I’ve stepped-up my donations to the Sisters as they’ve been hit by the double-whammy of legal abuse from Leftists like our state AG Josh Shapiro and increased expenses of keeping their facilities COVID safe.
Thomas wrote the opinion, joined by Rbrts, Kavanaugh.
Alito, Gorsuch joined Thomas, but wrote their own concurrence. So what they say is not part of the majority.
Breyer, Kagan have their own concurrence. Makes 7-2.
19-page Concurring opinion begins on page 31. Alito/Gorsuch. Their “dissent” from the 5-member Thomas opinion. Excellent
Went all the way to the top. Now leave them alone.
It’s not over. Not even close.
God bless the Little Sisters of the Poor for hanging in there.
Whalen with 2 essays on today’s opinions. Explains the problem on the Sisters’ win.
PA AG Shapiro got b!tch-slapped but good.
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list
Is that how they got 7-2, sending crap back to the lower courts?
No. The 5-person opinion said the govt was ALLOWED to carve out an exception. Alito & Gorsuch then separately added that the govt should be required to give an exception.
The 2 Libs agreed with 5 on ALLOWED, but didn’t join it. They wrote their separate opinion, giving different reasoning.
So the 7-2 is just a facade and won’t carry to the next similar case
If we have a future DEM POTUS, he will remove the exception ... and a new case starts for the Sisters.
Meh. So we "won" this case, but not really.
Also weird that Thomas authored the weakly written "majority" opinion. You'd think he would have been on the side of the stronger Alito concurrence.
Remember that time during the Obama presidency where the Supreme Court decision was so vague and confusing that BOTH sides were claiming it was a victory for them?
No. But I remember Bush v. Gore as they began to read it and oh shit it was 7-2 that means we lost oh wait it was 7-2 that there was a problem that there was no single standard statewide (and 2 assholes who thought that was just fine) but 5-4 as to the solution that it's too late so Gore can eff himself, maybe he shouldn't have tried to cherry pick counties instead of asking for a statewide recount in the first place.
I detest ambiguity. ;d
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.