Contributor Tweets
Other Tweets
Search Site
Disclaimer

Information on this site is for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. If you have a legal problem, consult your institutional counsel or an attorney licensed to practice law in your state. Information and views presented in this blog are solely those of the individual contributors and not their employers.

Subscribe to blog's feed

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Exempt or Non-Exempt: The Fair Labor Standards Act and Higher Education | Main | Shaped by Challenges: Affirmative Action in Higher Education Admissions »
Tuesday
Feb142017

Religious Institutions and the Battle Over the Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Mandate

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, and later upheld by the United States Supreme Court on June 28, 2012. The law was written to accomplish a number of things, among them to increase health insurance access and quality. One major point of contention with the law was a contraception mandate – a requirement for all employers and educational institutions to provide female contraception coverage. The law noted one exception to those under its influence – churches and houses of worship. The law provided four requirements to be considered a religious employer and to receive the exemption:

(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.

(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.

(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.

(4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Much to the disapproval of many religious organizations, the requirements to be exempt from the mandate did not cover religious schools, religious hospitals, religious charities, and other businesses and organizations owned and controlled by religious groups. Even though many private religious schools’ missions cover more than simply the inculcation (teaching) of religious values, their exemption status was not granted. Organizations that failed to provide health coverage would be subjected to a fee. By mandating contraception coverage, many of these organizations felt their religious tenets were being compromised.

The Obama Administration offered an opt-out compromise allowing religious nonprofits to explicitly state their opposition to the contraception mandate and to have the organizations’ insurance companies cover the cost of the contraceptives at no financial burden to the nonprofit. Several religious nonprofits still felt this compromise was not satisfactory as they felt responsible for the providence of contraceptives. This resulted in multiple lawsuits.

Colorado Christian University (CCU), a private religious institution in Denver, Colorado, filed a lawsuit in 2011 against the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) related to the contraception mandate. The case was rejected but then renewed again in 2013. In 2014 CCU was granted an injunction from the contraception mandate by the Colorado district court. The result was that CCU would not have to pay a fee for failing to provide contraception health care until later court rulings affected the lawsuit.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard a lawsuit against the contraception mandate by a private corporation, Hobby Lobby. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was heard by the United States Supreme Court and a decision was rendered in 2014. The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby allowing closely held for-profit religious corporations to be exempt from the contraception mandate if there was a less restrictive means of accomplishing the law’s intent. The decision cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as evidence.

In Oklahoma an appeal of a similar lawsuit to CCU’s was rejected in 2015. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against four Oklahoma Christian universities who were seeking an exemption from the contraception mandate. The court decided that the law and its religious exemptions do not violate the schools’ religious freedom. This ruling upheld the accommodation created by the Obama Administration.

With the contraception mandate still in effect and the compromise offering the best alternative for many religious institutions, dissenting schools were forced to utilize a few different options: compliance with the law, lawsuits challenging the law and seeking injunctions, or not paying the fee. On July 31, 2015, Wheaton College, a private Christian institution, ended their student health insurance, utilized by a quarter (approximately 3,000 individuals) of the student population due to conflicts with their centrally held religious beliefs.

Currently both sides of the issue appear to be at an impasse. In May of 2016, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the appellate courts, asking the federal appeals courts to reach a compromise on the issue. With the new Trump administration coming into power, there are likely to be some significant changes to how the law exists and gets enforced during his tenure. Provided a 9th Justice is still yet to be added, the Supreme Court might still decide on the contraception mandate in the future.

This post was co-authored by Mr. Andy Hieber and Dr. David Nguyen. Mr. Hieber is a Hall Director at the University of North Dakota and a masters student in the UND Higher Education program.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

It is interesting how different religious institutions have handled the Affordable Care Act. I find it unique that one school stopped offering health insurance altogether to its students since it did not agree with the policy. This probably had a major impact on the student population since they could not get health insurance from their university anymore. Another compelling aspect was how there were two cases in different states that were similar but had different outcomes.

February 17, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterDylan Ruffra

I appreciate the different approach you've taken to ACA. Religious institutions are not within the traditional realm, and it's interesting to see their response. I will be curious to see what happens with this case as it gets sent back down. As you mentioned, when the new Supreme Court Justice is elected, I wonder if similar cases will be brought forth for the court to decide on.

February 21, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterKatie Fulmer

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Textile formatting is allowed.