by CMF | Jul 17, 2020 | Media Appearances, Press Releases | 0 comments, For Immediate ReleaseWashington, DC (July 17, 2020). Echoing her own fears expressed at oral arguments that the court seems to have written women’s health and equality interests out of the equation altogether, she wrote, “This Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.”. Today, they experience Round 2 at the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that should be renamed Insatiable Ideologues v. Little Sisters of the Poor. We are talking about a web of decisions that demote women to bystanders. This latest decision upholds the religious exemption crafted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that protects the Little Sisters from being forced to provide contraception and abortion in their health plan, and it should be celebrated by all who cherish religious freedom and all other civil rights. The government estimated at oral arguments that broadening the religious exemption would result in as many as 125,000 women losing their statutorily mandated contraceptive coverage. Alito (joined by Gorsuch) wrote that he would have gone much further, arguing that the prior administration’s refusal to broaden the accommodation to sincere religious objectors violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In short, the Supreme Court has given us back our freedom to serve. Poor women and women of color will be hardest hit, yet again. Women, already bearing the brunt of shutdowns and child care, may now lose access to vital contraception coverage. The Supreme Court certified the cases in January 2020, consolidating both the Little Sisters and government petition. You can cancel anytime. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday the Little Sisters of the Poor Catholic religious order is exempt from Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. New Jersey joined Pennsylvania in the suit. Complaint ¶14 in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver, Colo. v. Sebelius, No. The Department of Justice, and the Catholic nonprofit Little Sisters … The Supreme Court issued a ruling today upholding a pro-life order from President Donald Trump that protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from being force to pay for abortion-causing drugs under their health insurance plan. That case was heard by the court in May. Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company. 19–431 and 19–454 . New Jersey joined Pennsylvania in the suit. A federal appeals court in Philadelphia enjoined those new rules nationwide. It’s useful to recall that what the court taketh away cannot be fixed in the next legislative session or the one that follows. on writs of certiorari to the united states court … The Department of Justice, and the Catholic nonprofit Little Sisters of the Poor, asked the Supreme Court to reverse those rulings. The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home . If you value our work, please disable your ad blocker. A huge 7-2 win for The Little Sisters of the Poor as the Supreme Court upholds the Trump Admin’s religious & moral exemptions from Obamacare’s … Thanks to the persistence of a group of nuns, the Supreme Court on Wednesday looks to have resolved the controversy once and for all. But they seemed uncertain the new exemptions would survive lower court scrutiny. In 2017, the Trump administration broadened the category of religious exemptions to include yet more employers who wanted to be free from the obligation to cover their workers’ contraception. As the dissent notes, the animating idea behind religious accommodations is that the government may surely accommodate religion but it may not benefit religious adherents at the expense of the rights of “third parties.” The third parties here are the women who have simply fallen out of the majority’s calculations. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you won’t find anywhere else. For more of Slate’s legal coverage, listen to Amicus below, or subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has vindicated the foundational freedom of our country and the Constitution: the right of religious liberty. The lawsuit effectively flipped the theme of litigation in these cases from “Can religious dissenters opt out of the contraception mandate?” to “Can the Trump administration allow anyone to opt out so long as they claim a religious or ‘moral’ objection to contraception?”, In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas determined that the Trump administration “had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections.” Pennsylvania had also argued that the administration rolled out the rule without sufficient process, but Thomas rejected that idea, dissolving the nationwide injunction and remanding the case back to the lower courts. Little Sisters of the Poor on Supreme Court win: God has protected us July 9, 2020, 4:38 AM Sister Constance Veit and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's Montse Alvarado join 'Fox & Friends' after the Supreme Court upholds religious and moral exemptions for birth control coverage. But the Obama administration created a narrow carve-out that allowed houses of worship to opt out of the contraception mandate. In a 7-2 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania , the Court ended the long legal struggle the nuns, who care for the elderly poor … little sisters of the poor saints peter and paul home, petitioner 19–431 . Then she drew a reasoned decision-making map for future litigation: “The agency does so when it has not given ‘a satisfactory explanation for its action’—when it has failed to draw a ‘rational connection’ between the problem it has identified and the solution it has chosen, or when its thought process reveals ‘a clear error of judgment.’ ”, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, with Ginsburg writing, as she did in Hobby Lobby, to point out that in what should be a careful accommodating of two competing interests (religion and health), the balance was again being skewed dramatically away from women’s health. Slate relies on advertising to support our journalism. Both the government and Little Sisters petitioned the Supreme Court on the Third Circuit decision. Now they’re fighting to preserve that earlier victory. “And the plain language of the statute clearly allows the Departments to create the preventive care standards as well as the religious and moral exemptions.”, Thomas was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. v. pennsylvania, et al. “Accommodating claims of religious freedom, this Court has taken a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs,” she wrote. But the court is overseeing a seismic and lasting shift away from factoring women’s health into the picture. The same seems to be true of the women who do not share the religious views of their schools or employers, whose interests have been sidelined in this ostensible balancing test. A right to worship — responsibly | Pittsburgh Gazette publishes OpEd by CMF CURO Director, Jordan Buzza, Christ Medicus Foundation statement on Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo – EWTN News Nightly, Christ Medicus Foundation calls for an end to restrictions on houses of worship in the wake of Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, Michael Vacca Discusses Religious Liberty During COVID-19 on Bioethics on Air, MyCatholicDoctor Appoints Louis Brown to Board of Directors. By Calvin Freiburger WASHINGTON, D.C., July 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Wednesday in a decision siding with the Little Sisters of … In one case, the court held that the Little Sisters of the Poor should not be required to cooperate in providing contraceptive coverage to employees. Unfortunately, the continued possibility that a future presidential administration could undo religious freedom protections in health care plans reminds us that we must be ever vigilant. With these religious objector cases, we are witnessing the blurring of women’s constitutional and statutory rights into the background as the interests of everyone else, including their religious bosses, are positioned as singular and urgent. In 2016, the Supreme Court remanded the … Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has vindicated the foundational freedom of our country and the Constitution: the right of religious liberty. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the high court made the unusual and unprecedented move of hearing the consolidated cases of Little Sisters … A follow-on rule gave religious nonprofits an accommodation that allowed them to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage if they “self-certified,” or gave written notice of, their religious objection, at which point their insurer or the government would pay for the coverage. Troy, MI 48084, Phone: (800) 840-7471 Abortion advocates have spent years trying to force the Catholic nuns to fund the destruction of unborn babies in abortions. After years of litigation, the Little Sisters won their case at the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2016. In a 7-2 decision, the high court in Little Sisters of the Poor v. The Trump administration and the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic religious order for women, are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court. donald j. trump, president of the united states, et al., petitioners 19–454 . After nearly 10 years of litigation, the Little Sisters of the Poor finally won in the Supreme Court on Wednesday — again. nos. The Little Sisters, who number more than 2,000 among dozens of U.S. convents, first challenged the Obamacare mandate before the Supreme Court in 2016. As religious dissenters continue to swallow the protections, rights, and entitlements afforded to women under the law, the trend lines are clear. After seven years of unending legal conflict to save their ministry, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor 7-2, allowing them to continue serving the elderly poor and dying without threat of millions of dollars in fines. This was one of two big wins today for religious employers seeking to end-run laws intended to protect workers. While the Christ Medicus Foundation (CMF) applauds this Supreme Court decision, we encourage Americans to remain vigilant in defending religious freedom. supreme court of the united states . “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.”, Ginsburg pointed out the government has estimated between 70,500 and 126,400 women would lose their “no-cost contraceptive services” if more employers were exempt from providing it. The Little Sisters of the Poor are going back to the Supreme Court for the 3rd time, forced to defend themselves against the contraceptive mandate in the ACA All rights reserved. In a 7-2 decision, and after nearly a decade of litigation through all levels of the federal judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court today—once and for all—upheld the right of the Little Sisters of the Poor to follow their religious convictions. Of cardinal significance, the exemption contains no alternative mechanism to ensure affected women’s continued access to contraceptive coverage.” Without insurance, women can expect to pay $600 to $1,000 annually for oral contraception and more for IUDs. Louis Brown, the Executive Director of the Christ Medicus Foundation, explains, “The contraceptive mandate which forced the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their conscience was extremely unjust and did not advance authentic health care.” He continues, highlighting the importance of this paramount win, “The Little Sisters should be celebrated by our culture for their heroic work in service to the elderly poor, not forced to litigate for years on end to defend their inalienable rights to religious freedom and conscience. Whenever we talk about women’s reproductive freedom in America being stripped away by a thousand tiny cuts, we aren’t just referencing whether clinics in Louisiana may survive until the next regulation is enacted. Little Sisters Of The Poor Home For The Aged, Denver, Colorado, A Colorado Non-profit Corporation, et al., Applicants: v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. All contents © 2020 The Slate Group LLC. Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joined in the narrow decision to send the case back to the lower courts for review, on the theory that, yes, the government has the authority to promulgate exemptions. Women, already bearing the brunt of shutdowns and child care, may now lose access to vital contraception, Columbus’ Policing Problem Goes Deeper Than the Shooting of Andre Hill, Amy Coney Barrett Is Already Putting Her Mark on the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer on Whether Judges Get More Liberal as They Get Older, The First Woman to Face Federal Execution in 67 Years Never Got to Tell Her Story. Last week I worried about how even the decision in June Medical, ostensibly a pro-woman ruling, seemed to have erased women’s reproductive challenges from the holding in the case. Suite 150 Respondent Commonweath of Pennsylvania and State of New Jersey . The case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, marked the Catholic religious order’s second time before the Supreme Court, after nearly 10 years of legal dispute. It bears mentioning that this decision comes down in the midst of a pandemic alongside crippling national job losses and financial hardship. Sister Loraine Marie Maguire is a mother provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor in the United States. We must stay focused on defending the rights of conscience and religious freedom in health care which are foundational to civil rights in our country.”, Jordan Buzza, Director of the pro-life Catholic health care ministry, CMF CURO, affirms, “This decision is a victory for religious freedom. After nearly 10 years of litigation, the Little Sisters of the Poor finally won in the Supreme Court on Wednesday — again. 1:13–cv–02611 (D Colo.), p. 5 (Complaint). More litigation followed, as even the self-certification requirement was deemed to be triggering abortions. The Little Sisters of the Poor found themselves back before the Supreme Court, intervening to protect the new rules and the religious accommodations they received under them. Consistent with their Catholic faith, the Little Sisters hold the religious conviction “that deliberately avoiding reproduction through medical means is immoral.” “The only question we face today is what the plain language of the statute authorizes,” Thomas wrote. The Supreme Court issued a ruling today upholding a pro-life order from President Donald Trump that protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from being force to pay for abortion-causing drugs under their health insurance plan. Their original case was finally resolved at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in … Justice Thomas’ thoughtfully restrained opinion resolves questions about the rule-making authority of HHS under the Affordable Care Act, without directly considering the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but it is a clear victory for the Little Sisters. PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor 7-2 today, allowing them to continue serving the elderly poor and dying without threat of millions of dollars in fines. The Little Sisters, who number more than 2,000 among dozens of U.S. convents, first challenged the Obamacare mandate before the Supreme Court in 2016. 4 LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOMEv. As Ginsburg writes, “More than 2.9 million Americans—including approximately 580,000 women of childbearing age—receive insurance through organizations newly eligible for this blanket exemption. ALITO, J., filed a con- curring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. Thanks to the persistence of a group of nuns, the Supreme Court on Wednesday looks to have resolved the controversy once and for all. And we can’t wait to do it. In a 7-2 decision, the high court in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Washington, DC (July 17, 2020) After nearly seven years of litigation, the Little Sisters of the Poor have again won at the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Little Sisters of the …