Federal Court Blocks Trump’s Birth Control Exemption Rules

A recent ruling has overturned the Trump administration’s exemption rules regarding birth control coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act. This requirement, which aimed to ensure that all employers provide health plans covering birth control, was deemed arbitrary and beyond the authority under which it was enacted.

In Philadelphia, District Judge Wendy Beetlestone issued a summary judgment against the regulations established in 2017, suggesting they overstepped the boundaries set for such decisions.

The rules allowed various employers, including both for-profit and non-profit organizations, to opt out of providing contraception coverage based on religious or moral beliefs. Interestingly, while public companies could claim religious exemptions, moral reasoning was not accepted for private entities.

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers are required to cover at least one of the 18 FDA-approved forms of birth control. Previously, the Supreme Court had intervened in 2014, siding with religiously-affiliated businesses that felt the mandate infringed upon their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

While the agency attempted to strike a balance in subsequent actions, the comprehensive exemption issued in 2017 asserted that requiring employers to apply for exemptions contravened their religious freedoms.

Numerous states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, have been vocal about their opposition to these exemptions and have pushed for wider accommodations. The issue even made its way to the Supreme Court in 2020, where, although Trump’s rules were technically upheld, the core issues of the case were not resolved.

The matter was then sent back to a lower court, which saw various religious groups join the suit alongside the federal government, calling for summary judgment.

In her ruling, Judge Beetlestone, who was appointed by former President Obama, pointed out that the administration’s measures intended to reconcile the birth control mandate with the RFRA ultimately fell short. She noted that the exemptions granted were to organizations that did not fulfill the criteria to maintain religious objections, raising doubts about the connections between the regulations and their intended conflict resolution.

The Little Sisters of the Poor, one of the groups affected by this decision, plans to appeal in the coming weeks with support from the Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom.