> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • Ascendium Resource Center
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Religious Colleges
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

In Supreme Court Fight Over Contraception, Each Side Accuses the Other of Obstinance

By  Peter Schmidt
March 24, 2016
Protesters gathered on Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court Building. Inside, the justices heard arguments over religious colleges’ objections to a requirement that their health-insurance plans include a contraception option.
Chronicle Photo by Julia Schmalz
Protesters gathered on Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court Building. Inside, the justices heard arguments over religious colleges’ objections to a requirement that their health-insurance plans include a contraception option.
Washington

Lawyers for religious colleges and the Obama administration accused each other of making unreasonable demands on Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a challenge to federal rules aimed at ensuring access to contraception coverage.

The court, for its part, seemed divided on the question of which side needs to bend — the faith-based organizations that morally object to even tangential involvement with insurance coverage for contraception, or government officials who have refused to grant such groups the same sorts of exemptions given to other types of employers.

We're sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network.

Please allow access to our site, and then refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, please contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Lawyers for religious colleges and the Obama administration accused each other of making unreasonable demands on Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a challenge to federal rules aimed at ensuring access to contraception coverage.

The court, for its part, seemed divided on the question of which side needs to bend — the faith-based organizations that morally object to even tangential involvement with insurance coverage for contraception, or government officials who have refused to grant such groups the same sorts of exemptions given to other types of employers.

Many of the justices’ remarks focused on a knotty legal question — when the federal government should grant exemptions to the law for religious reasons. The court also grappled with the logistical challenges that would arise from trying to accommodate faith-based organizations’ objections to contraception while ensuring that it remains readily available.

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer representing several of the colleges and other religious organizations before the court, said his clients “face a dilemma” that should be seen as prohibited under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 federal law intended to deter the government from burdening people’s exercise of religion.

“They can adhere to their religious beliefs and pay millions of dollars in penalties,” Mr. Clement said, “or they can take steps that they believe to be religiously and morally objectionable, and that the government deems necessary, for them to provide contraception coverage through their health-care plans.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The U.S. solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., argued, however, that the federal government had made “a serious, thoughtful effort to respect” the religious beliefs of the organizations challenging its policy before the court. He accused the other side of demanding that the rights of employees who want contraceptive access be extinguished until Congress passes a new health law that provides it through “a separate, one-off, jerry-rigged” channel.

Prospects for Change

Argued before the court were seven separate cases, combined as Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14-1418, involving challenges to the federal government’s carrying out of the Affordable Care Act. Among the nonprofit organizations that brought the lawsuits were seven religious colleges.

Eight U.S. appellate courts have heard such challenges to the law, and seven of them have ruled in favor of the federal government.

In the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month, the Supreme Court is evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. If its 4-to-4 ideological split translates into a tie in the Zubik cases — an outcome that appears quite possible based on remarks the justices made on Wednesday — the appellate-court decisions under review would remain intact.

The religious organizations that object to offering such coverage are not required to provide it through their own insurance plans, but they must declare their intent to opt out to their insurer, a third-party administrator, or the Department of Health and Human Services. The government then works directly with the religious organization’s insurance provider or plan administrator to offer the contraception coverage, which the organization does not subsidize in any way.

ADVERTISEMENT

The religious organizations that have challenged the federal law object on moral grounds to the opt-out notification requirement, arguing that it still requires them to violate their religious beliefs. They have called for the federal government to establish some other mechanism for providing contraception that does not involve them in any way.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, the court’s conservative wing focused heavily on the question of whether the government should completely exempt faith-based groups, as it does with churches themselves.

When Solicitor General Verrilli said it would take a change in the law to create a new mechanism for providing such organizations’ employees with coverage, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. replied, “Well, the way constitutional objections work is, you might have to change current law.” Justice Roberts agreed with the assertion by lawyers for the religious organizations that the current law and regulations, in effect, “hijack” their insurance plans.

Saving Souls

The two lawyers for the religious organizations were challenged by the court’s liberal wing over their argument that their faith-based objections should trump the government’s interest in providing access to preventive health care.

Speaking to Mr. Clement, Justice Elena Kagan argued that his theory of the case hinges on a religious objection as “the end-all and the be-all.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how the government would be able to continue to function if it accommodated every claim that one of its requirements burdened religious beliefs. “Every believer that’s ever come before us, including the people in the military,” has said “my soul will be damned in some way,” she said.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer cited several examples of categories of people who do not get accommodations when their religious beliefs are offended by government action, such as Quakers who object to the use of their tax money to finance wars, or people who object to laws that protect blasphemy as free speech.

On the other side of the court’s ideological divide, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the federal government had not offered a good rationale for why it denies religious organizations the same exemption it gives churches themselves.

Justice Kagan argued, however, that if the court forced the federal government to offer all religious people the same exemptions granted to churches, Congress would decide “not to give an exemption at all.”

Peter Schmidt writes about affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. Contact him at peter.schmidt@chronicle.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

A version of this article appeared in the April 1, 2016, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Law & Policy
Peter Schmidt
Peter Schmidt was a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education. He covered affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. He is a co-author of The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America (The New Press, 2020).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

  • Legal Challenges to Obama Health Law Could Cost Women
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Accessibility Statement
    Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin