ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Trump HHS Change To Birth Control Mandate

FILE - In this March 25, 2015, file photo, Margot Riphagen, of New Orleans, wears a birth control pills costume as she protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, as the court heard oral arguments in the ch... FILE - In this March 25, 2015, file photo, Margot Riphagen, of New Orleans, wears a birth control pills costume as she protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, as the court heard oral arguments in the challenges of President Barack Obama's health care law requirement that businesses provide their female employees with health insurance that includes access to contraceptives. Some insurance plans offered on the health marketplaces violate the law’s requirements for women’s health, according to a new report from a women’s legal advocacy group. The National Women’s Law Center analyzed plans in 15 states over two years and found some excluded dependents from maternity coverage, prohibited coverage of breast pumps or failed to cover all federally approved birth control methods. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Less than two hours after the Trump administration unveiled its widely expected move to gut Obamacare’s birth control mandate, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Friday that it was filing a lawsuit challenging the regulation change.

The lawsuit is being filed on the behalf of a Notre Dame Law student, Kate Rochat, as well as members of a union, Service Employee International Union-United Health Care Workers West. The ACLU in its press release said they “are at risk of losing their contraception coverage because of where they work or where they go to school. ”

The lawsuit challenges the regulations on both administrative grounds — arguing that the administration has not shown the required “good cause” for implementing the regulation without a public comment period — and also on the substance of the regulations. The lawsuit argues that the Trump administration’s move violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and the right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the rule is also illegal under the Affordable Care Act’s ban on sex discrimination and its prohibition of the Health Human Services Secretary from implementing regulations that create “unreasonable barriers” to accessing medical care.

Earlier Friday, the Trump administration posted what’s known as an “interim rule,”  meaning that the administration is using a fast-track process and the regulation change is going into effect immediately. The administration is going forward with two interim rules, technically: one that creates a sweeping exemption to the Obamacare birth control mandate for religious objectors, and a second that extends that exemption to those who have objections based on “moral convictions.”

Under an accommodation offered by Obama’s HHS, employers with religious objections would notify the government about their objection, and the government then would seek to get the coverage for the affected women through through a third party administrator. The accommodation was subject to numerous lawsuits that were never fully resolved.

Now, thanks to the Trump administration rule change, any entity with religious or moral objections to birth control no longer has to notify the government of their objections. They can cease the coverage, and are only required to inform their employees of the change to their health plans.

Like the accommodation that proceeded it, the Trump rule stands to be the target of multiple lawsuits. Other groups and individuals have signaled they will likely sue the administration over it.

Read the complaint below:

Latest DC

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for brissy brissy says:

    Perhaps something to ask yourselves is why birth control pills cost more than a fraction of a cent each to buy?

    Agree or disagree with trump’s move, the elephant in the room is the massively inflated prices Americans pay for access to cheap basic drugs. If the system was fixed, things like this just wouldn’t be a big issue.

  2. Avatar for marby marby says:

    I share your concern about the cost of basic drugs but your argument isn’t relevant here. The administration is not objecting to the cost of birth control - they are giving employers the right to deny basic medications because of "moral “objections.” This means that, soon, blood transfusions might not be covered (or other procedures that anyone claims to object to.) You’re trying to distract from the issue at hand.

  3. And the same people who want to ban abortions are the same people who do not want women to have access to birth control.

  4. Avatar for brissy brissy says:

    My point is that basic medications that are incredibly cheap to manufacture at scale should reflect this in their price, and so be cheap enough that the poorest in society can access them without having to rely on their employer or insurer at all. If that was fixed, the argument over this weird position we’re in -unique in the developed world if not the world - where employers are in some way linked to people’s birth control would be moot.

  5. Avatar for marby marby says:

    Well, blood transfusions aren’t cheap and some religious groups object to those. Trump is opening a door (based on the GOP false sense of “morality”) which many employers will be happy to walk through. I hope no one in your family needs any of the medication or services which will be labeled “objectionable” by some employer.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

31 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for sandi Avatar for davitydave Avatar for marby Avatar for mattinpa Avatar for clemmers Avatar for joelopines Avatar for lastroth Avatar for ignoranceispiss Avatar for tena Avatar for antisachetdethe Avatar for susanintheoc Avatar for katscherger Avatar for kumquat16 Avatar for kenga Avatar for brissy

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: