U.S. Supreme Court | Susan J. Demas
“For millions of women across this country, contraception is a critical part of their health care,” Nessel said. “The Affordable Care Act provides for this preventative care, and employers shouldn’t get to substitute their interests in place of a doctor’s professional judgment. The federal government should look for ways to support and promote women, not create barriers that affect a woman’s health and well-being.”
In the brief filed in Donald Trump et al. v. Pennsylvania, the attorneys general argue states have an interest in safeguarding the ACA’s birth control coverage requirement, which they say has benefited more than 62 million women across the country. The coalition argues that access to affordable birth control is critical to the health, well-being and economic security of the states’ residents.
In 2017 and 2018, the President Trump administration issued rules that ignored the ACA’s birth control requirement and allowed employers to deny birth control coverage to their employees based on religious or moral objections.
“Rather than honor Congress’s commitment to provide women with full and equal healthcare, the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury … have issued two Final Rules that create blanket exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate for virtually any employer with religious or moral objections to contraception,” the AGs write.
That action was challenged in the Ninth Circuit and Third Circuit courts by a coalition of attorneys general, which led to injunctions that protect the birth control coverage mandate, per the AG office. However, the federal government, Little Sisters of the Poor and March for Life filed petitions in the U.S. Supreme Court. The petitions from the Ninth Circuit decision are pending, but the Supreme Court granted those from the Third Circuit, of which Michigan is involved.
In the brief, the attorneys general argue the states have a vested interest in providing women seamless contraceptive coverage. Tens of thousands of women will lose their cost-free contraceptive coverage if employers are allowed to exempt themselves from the ACA requirement. This loss of coverage could result in a reliance on state-funded programs that could increase the states’ costs associated with the provision of reproductive health care, and would likely lead to an increase in unintended pregnancies.
Nessel filed the brief with the attorneys general of California, Massachusetts,
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.