WASHINGTON, D.C., April 20, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Both sides of the Supreme Court's HHS mandate case filed legal briefs today, the final documents justices have requested before possibly making a decision on the controversial ObamaCare contraceptive mandate.
Justices asked both parties to submit plans for the government to furnish women with contraceptives, including the morning after pill, without relying upon the current arrangement. They submitted those briefs on April 12.
Today, the government and religious organizations submitted their responses to those filings.
A diverse, ecumenical coalition is suing the Obama administration over the opt-out process, saying it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Institutions with deeply held religious objections to providing contraception, sterilization, or abortifacient drugs must certify their views in writing. That triggers the insurance companies to provide those drugs – something the Little Sisters of the Poor, among others, say makes them a cooperating party in sin.
Religious petitioners asked for the government to allow insurance companies to offer separate insurance policies that cover only contraception. When religious employers do not purchase an all-inclusive health insurance plan, the insurance companies could contact female employers and offer the separate plan at no cost.
The government brief, filed by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., replies that requiring women to accept or activate such coverage would create a “barrier to the delivery of preventive services.”
“That's actually pretty condescending,” Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told LifeSiteNews during a conference call late this afternoon. Women are perfectly capable of “picking up the phone” and calling insurers, he said.
Verrilli's response also states that the Obama administration “specifically considered contraceptive-only policies during rulemaking proceedings, but adopted a different approach,” because some state insurance laws would make the policies “unworkable.”
Rienzi replied, “The Affordable Care Act expressly preempts any contrary state law” from taking effect. Besides, federal law supersedes state law, he said; that's just “the way the Constitution works.”
The Obama administration also argued that “it would be startling to hold that RFRA entitles a religious objector not only to an exemption, but also to insist on being exempted without notifying anyone.” (Emphasis in original.)
However, Rienzi said that the government brief essentially admits there are less restrictive means available than the current government scheme, which violates RFRA's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
“The Little Sisters did not file a lawsuit early in this process,” Rienzi told LifeSiteNews. “They waited, because they trusted the government” would accommodate their consciences.
The Sisters have said from the outset that “all they want to do is be out of the process and focus on caring for the elderly poor, as they have for the last 175 years,” he said.
That was echoed by the nuns themselves. “We are so grateful that the [Supreme] Court asked to hear more about our case,” said Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, mother provincial for the Little Sisters of the Poor. “We just want to focus on our mission of serving the elderly poor as we have for the last 175 years while being faithful to the teachings of our church.”
“This case is about the freedom of all Americans to follow their faith,” said Dr. Blair Blackburn, president of East Texas Baptist University. “We simply ask the Court to recognize that ETBU is a conscientious objector, and that the federal government is insisting that we act as a conscientious collaborator.”
Dr. Robert Sloan, president of Houston Baptist University, said he is “hopeful that the Supreme Court will let us continue to serve our students and others.”
Justices are expected to rule on Zubik v. Burwell in June.
