Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Court Wrongly Makes it Harder for Some Employees to Access Contraception Under the ACA

WASHINGTON – On news that the U.S. Supreme Circuit issued its decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, holding that agency rules that provide an unconditional religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement to not-for-profit, educational, and for-profit employers, are permitted by the Affordable Care Act, CAC President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following statement:

The Court’s decision empowers the government to make it harder for some employees to access contraception, thereby allowing the government to subvert the ACA’s promise of universal contraceptive coverage.

With today’s ruling, as Justice Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, “[T]his 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. The Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, all agree, does not call for that imbalanced result.”

Nor does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Accommodations that allow religious objectors to opt out of generally applicable legal requirements, while third parties fulfill their obligations, represent a longstanding method of ensuring religious liberty, while also protecting the rights of third parties and furthering important governmental purposes.  

As we explained in our brief on behalf of military historians, what the challengers of the accommodation in this case suggested is an impermissible burden on free exercise is, in fact, a historically common practice. Our history is replete with examples of accommodating conscientious objectors by shifting their obligations to third parties who do not share that objection. The Court ignored that history today, and those who depended on the ACA for contraceptive services are the worse off for it.

#

Resources:

CAC brief on behalf of military historians in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/little-sisters-of-the-poor-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-donald-j-trump-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania/ 

“The Fight Over the Affordable Care Act and Birth Control Is Back at the Supreme Court,” David Gans, Slate, May 4, 2020: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/obamacare-and-birth-control-supreme-court-fight-sisters.html 

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
March 21, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.