Legal Challenges on Employer Health Plans and Contraceptive Coverage

Legal arguments over a federal mandate requiring employer health plans to cover contraception have continued, following a rule implemented under the Affordable Care Act. The Little Sisters of the Poor remain central to a legal challenge against this mandate, which was brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on July 7.

Starting in 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandated that employers cover contraceptive services, sparking significant debate over its implications for religious organizations. Although victories in two Supreme Court cases allowed religious objections, the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and New Jersey argue that federal exemptions from this requirement are overly broad, prompting further litigation.

A lower court ruled in favor of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, branding the federal exemptions as “arbitrary and capricious.” The Little Sisters of the Poor are appealing this decision, maintaining that the exemptions appropriately balance the mandate with religious liberty protections.

Aimee Thomson, representing the two states, voiced concerns about the expansive exemptions, suggesting they surpass the initial restrictions implied under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Thomson warns that these exemptions might allow insincere claims by employers, imposing undue burdens on female employees.

Conversely, Mark Rienzi, counsel for the Little Sisters, defended the exemptions as a lawful accommodation of religious concerns, aligning with RFRA guidelines. Rienzi argued that the exemptions respect religious liberties without exceeding necessary boundaries.

Supporting this view, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur emphasized that RFRA does not necessitate the minimal possible exemption. He advocated for the government's decision to reassess the exemption policy, urging an approach that aligns with preserving religious accommodations.

Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters highlighted their organization's mission-driven imperatives, expressing concerns that legal challenges could undermine their service to the elderly poor. This case continues to underscore the tensions between religious freedom claims and efforts to uphold healthcare coverage mandates, with potential significant implications depending on the appellate court's decision.