Appellate Ruling Deals Setback To Opponents Of Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

On August 4, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision for the government in Real Alternatives v. HHS, a case involving objections to the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage without cost-sharing imposed by the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services mandate. Specifically, the case involved two issues: whether the government must exempt an employer that objects on moral, as opposed to religious, grounds to contraceptive coverage from the requirement to provide such coverage, and 2) whether individuals who object to contraceptives on religious grounds must be allowed to purchase insurance that does not cover contraceptives. Two of the three judges on the appellate panel answered both questions in the negative. The third judge accepted their position on the first issue involving moral objections but filed a long and passionate dissent on the religious freedom issue. This is the first appellate court decision on both issues, but a federal district court answered both questions in the affirmative in March for Life v. Burwell, while yet another district court in Wieland v. HHS enjoined the federal government from enforcing the contraceptive requirement against insurers that would be willing to sell insurance without contraceptives to individuals who object to contraceptives on religious grounds. The Majority Opinion The majority had little trouble disposing of the claim of Real Alternatives, which is essentially a non-religious ...
Source: Health Affairs Blog - Category: Health Management Authors: Tags: Following the ACA Insurance and Coverage contraceptive coverage Preventive Services Mandate Source Type: blogs