User login
Massachusetts cannot sue the Trump administration for broadening exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, a district court has ruled.
In a March decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts concluded that the state lacks standing to sue the federal government and that it could not prove that its residents would be harmed by the expanded exemption.
Under two regulations, issued in October 2017 in the Federal Register, the Trump administration allowed that an expanded group of employers and insurers can object to paying for contraception coverage on religious or moral grounds. The new policy “better balances the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions,” according to the rule issued by the departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.
Several state attorneys general sued over the rules, including Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D). Ms. Healey argued that the rules violates women’s equal protection rights by restricting their ability to access contraception. The lawsuit also claimed the narrowing of the mandate allowed employers to unconstitutionally impose their religious and moral beliefs on employees.
“The [rules] jeopardize the health care of women in Massachusetts and nationwide, promote the religious freedom of corporations over the autonomy and health of women, and leave the states to bear additional health care costs both with regard to contraceptive and prenatal care as well as other services associated with unintended pregnancies and related negative health outcomes for both women and their children,” the lawsuit stated.
In his March 12 opinion however, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton dismissed the state’s claims, ruling that Massachusetts failed to prove its citizens will suffer future injury from the exemption expansion. The judge noted a 2017 law passed by Massachusetts called the ACCESS Act that requires certain employer-sponsored health plans to cover contraceptives without imposing out-of-pocket costs on employees. This law and other state regulations make Massachusetts less likely than women in other states to be affected negatively by the expanded exemption, said Judge Gorton, who was appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush.
In a statement, Ms. Healey said the state was disappointed in the decision, but remained steadfast in its commitment to “ensuring affordable and reliable reproductive health care for women.”
“Access to contraceptive coverage is a critical issue for the health, equality, and economic well-being of women and their families, and we will continue to fight for these protections.” Ms. Healey said.
The legal fight over the ACA’s contraceptive mandate exemption is far from over. The Massachusetts decision comes after federal judges in California and Pennsylvania halted the administration’s exemption rules. In December 2017, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. temporarily blocked the exemption extension from going forward in favor of California and four other states that joined the lawsuit – New York, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Earlier that month, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled similarly in a decision for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both Mr. Gilliam and Ms. Beetlestone were appointed to the bench by President Obama.
The Trump administration has indicated that it plans to appeal the rulings. In a summary of the rules, the administration said the new policies will “better balance the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions.”
Massachusetts cannot sue the Trump administration for broadening exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, a district court has ruled.
In a March decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts concluded that the state lacks standing to sue the federal government and that it could not prove that its residents would be harmed by the expanded exemption.
Under two regulations, issued in October 2017 in the Federal Register, the Trump administration allowed that an expanded group of employers and insurers can object to paying for contraception coverage on religious or moral grounds. The new policy “better balances the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions,” according to the rule issued by the departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.
Several state attorneys general sued over the rules, including Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D). Ms. Healey argued that the rules violates women’s equal protection rights by restricting their ability to access contraception. The lawsuit also claimed the narrowing of the mandate allowed employers to unconstitutionally impose their religious and moral beliefs on employees.
“The [rules] jeopardize the health care of women in Massachusetts and nationwide, promote the religious freedom of corporations over the autonomy and health of women, and leave the states to bear additional health care costs both with regard to contraceptive and prenatal care as well as other services associated with unintended pregnancies and related negative health outcomes for both women and their children,” the lawsuit stated.
In his March 12 opinion however, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton dismissed the state’s claims, ruling that Massachusetts failed to prove its citizens will suffer future injury from the exemption expansion. The judge noted a 2017 law passed by Massachusetts called the ACCESS Act that requires certain employer-sponsored health plans to cover contraceptives without imposing out-of-pocket costs on employees. This law and other state regulations make Massachusetts less likely than women in other states to be affected negatively by the expanded exemption, said Judge Gorton, who was appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush.
In a statement, Ms. Healey said the state was disappointed in the decision, but remained steadfast in its commitment to “ensuring affordable and reliable reproductive health care for women.”
“Access to contraceptive coverage is a critical issue for the health, equality, and economic well-being of women and their families, and we will continue to fight for these protections.” Ms. Healey said.
The legal fight over the ACA’s contraceptive mandate exemption is far from over. The Massachusetts decision comes after federal judges in California and Pennsylvania halted the administration’s exemption rules. In December 2017, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. temporarily blocked the exemption extension from going forward in favor of California and four other states that joined the lawsuit – New York, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Earlier that month, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled similarly in a decision for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both Mr. Gilliam and Ms. Beetlestone were appointed to the bench by President Obama.
The Trump administration has indicated that it plans to appeal the rulings. In a summary of the rules, the administration said the new policies will “better balance the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions.”
Massachusetts cannot sue the Trump administration for broadening exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, a district court has ruled.
In a March decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts concluded that the state lacks standing to sue the federal government and that it could not prove that its residents would be harmed by the expanded exemption.
Under two regulations, issued in October 2017 in the Federal Register, the Trump administration allowed that an expanded group of employers and insurers can object to paying for contraception coverage on religious or moral grounds. The new policy “better balances the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions,” according to the rule issued by the departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.
Several state attorneys general sued over the rules, including Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D). Ms. Healey argued that the rules violates women’s equal protection rights by restricting their ability to access contraception. The lawsuit also claimed the narrowing of the mandate allowed employers to unconstitutionally impose their religious and moral beliefs on employees.
“The [rules] jeopardize the health care of women in Massachusetts and nationwide, promote the religious freedom of corporations over the autonomy and health of women, and leave the states to bear additional health care costs both with regard to contraceptive and prenatal care as well as other services associated with unintended pregnancies and related negative health outcomes for both women and their children,” the lawsuit stated.
In his March 12 opinion however, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton dismissed the state’s claims, ruling that Massachusetts failed to prove its citizens will suffer future injury from the exemption expansion. The judge noted a 2017 law passed by Massachusetts called the ACCESS Act that requires certain employer-sponsored health plans to cover contraceptives without imposing out-of-pocket costs on employees. This law and other state regulations make Massachusetts less likely than women in other states to be affected negatively by the expanded exemption, said Judge Gorton, who was appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush.
In a statement, Ms. Healey said the state was disappointed in the decision, but remained steadfast in its commitment to “ensuring affordable and reliable reproductive health care for women.”
“Access to contraceptive coverage is a critical issue for the health, equality, and economic well-being of women and their families, and we will continue to fight for these protections.” Ms. Healey said.
The legal fight over the ACA’s contraceptive mandate exemption is far from over. The Massachusetts decision comes after federal judges in California and Pennsylvania halted the administration’s exemption rules. In December 2017, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. temporarily blocked the exemption extension from going forward in favor of California and four other states that joined the lawsuit – New York, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Earlier that month, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled similarly in a decision for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both Mr. Gilliam and Ms. Beetlestone were appointed to the bench by President Obama.
The Trump administration has indicated that it plans to appeal the rulings. In a summary of the rules, the administration said the new policies will “better balance the government’s interest in promoting coverage for contraceptive and sterilization services with the government’s interests in providing conscience protections for entities with sincerely held moral convictions.”