Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania
The Little Sisters of the Poor is a Catholic charity which serves elderly women in over thirty countries. It is run by a group a Catholic nuns whose mission is to serve the elderly and the poor. The Catholic Church teaches that the use of contraception is immoral under the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2336. This belief has allowed them to be exempt from certain services in the Affordable Care Act which go against the church’s religious beliefs.
On October 6, 2017 the Trump administration broadened the cases for exemption. Nonprofits such as Little Sisters of the Poor could now claim a “moral” exemption when refusing to pay for the coverage of contraceptives included in the Affordable Care Act.
The State of Pennsylvania sued the Federal government for its protection of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Pennsylvania and its attorney general, Josh Shapiro, claimed that the exemption was unconstitutional, violated federal anti-discrimination law, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Sisters were granted the notion to intervene in April 2018. On January 14, 2019 their case was heard and the court ruled against them. The Sisters appealed immediately and their case was sent to the third circuit. In the third circuit court of appeals the court again ruled against them. The lawyer for the charity argued that the government did not need the Little Sisters of the Poor to contribute to funding of contraceptives.
On January 17, 2020 the Supreme Court agreed to review the decision of the third circuit. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of the sisters. They stated that the Department of Health, Labor, and the Treasury, had the authority to exempt organizations for religious or moral reasons.
The wording in the Affordable Care Act states, “additional preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.”. The court used the term “as provided for” as a meaning which permits exemptions.
Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor offered a dissenting opinion. They argued that the wording of the Health Resources and Services only permitted the decision of the type of women’s health care provided and not to allow exemptions from it.
Dating further back, in 2013 the Little Sisters of the Poor, represented by Becket, lost a case against the federal government protecting their religious freedom. They appealed the ruling and lost again in the U.S Court of Appeals. On the last day of 2013, Justice Sotomayor granted the Sisters emergency protection which gave them temporary protection from any fines. In 2014 the Supreme Court granted the Little Sisters of the poor a longer injunction, and the case was sent back to the U.S Court of Appeals for reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals ruled again against the Sisters, but the Supreme Court agreed to further hear the case in 2016. The Little Sisters of the Poor case was heard alongside five other religious non-profit cases involving Zubik v. Burwell. During the hearing the Obama administration admitted that the government could find other ways to fund contraceptives that did not involve the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Sisters.
It was no surprise that the court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor given that five of the nine justices are Catholic and may carry some biases. However, even though they may carry those opinions before the case does not mean that the decision was wrong.
The arguments that are most convincing in freedom of religion cases are whether or not the religious beliefs are legitimate and whether they are practically permissible. Without these truths we would have unlimited religious beliefs. For example let's say that someone has the religious belief that contraceptives are God. Would the government break the first amendment by endorsing the religion which believes in this? Obviously that religion does not exist.
The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”. This statement implies that there are established and unestablished religions. The Catholic Church is a Christian religion which dates back to approximately 36 AD. It is highly institutionalized around the world and has a very organized set of beliefs. To many this would be considered a legitimate religion.
7 comments:
I agree with the court’s final decision in favor of the Sisters. This case made me think of the bill we talked about previously that proposed taxpayer money should in part be given to Christian ministers and other leaders in the faith. One of James Madison’s primary points of opposition is that the people should not be forced to believe in and support something against their own free will and reason. In a similar sense, the Sisters should not be forced to support a cause that contradicts their belief system.
An interesting point that you didn't bring up in this particular discussion is how the court's decision that organizations are not required to provide certain health insurances for moral or religious reasons provides room for a slippery slope to form. I think that the vagueness of "moral or religious reasons" is extremely important in understanding the effective influence of this ruling. The ruling leaves room for virtually any objection to allow employers to avoid providing adequate benefits to their employees. It reminds me of the Cantwell v. CT case that argued about how states can protect citizens from fraudulent solicitation. In this case, how will the government be able to discern or protect individuals from fraudulent "moral reasons."
I strongly disagree with the court's decision in favor of the Sisters. As Emma explained above, the inclusion of the words "moral and religious reasons" is providing employers with too much room to object to providing insurance. The slippery slope of the language encourages many employers to create or make up a "moral" or "religious" reason to be exempt from the ACA requirements. It is not the job of the courts to decide what constitutes a religious or moral exemption and what doesn't on a case-by-case basis. The exemption for the Little Sisters is also just a clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, going against established prior legal precedent on the subject.
While I initially also disagreed with the Court's decision, upon further reflection, I've grown to understand it more. Yes, with an undefined set of moral principles, the slippery slope is applicable. For instance, if someone were to claim that being Catholic prohibits them from paying taxes, there would be no larger, international organization that would support that claim and therefore legitimize it. But, the Catholic Church (as in the organizational body headed by The Pope, not just some random church), has previously made its views on artificial contraceptives clear; contraceptives are immoral and sinful. Therefore, the Sisters have an official, holy directive (from their perspectives) to not fund artificial contraception because the Catholic Church has made its official stance on contraceptives clear and they believe that they are obligated to follow those directives.
I would have to agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. Many have commented on the slippery slope caused by the vagueness in reasons which are described as "moral and religious." I would agree that these terms are not very well defined, which is why it is necessary to look at those words in the context in which they were written. The composition of America at its founding was composed of a Christian stock of people. Many of the founders themselves held seminary degrees. The idea of separating church and state is likely to protect the church from the government, not the government from the church. The reason we can infer this is because of the issue of the British government trying to exercise power over the anglican church in England. Major issues dealing with religious persecution in Europe where between the catholics and protestants. Even laws on a state level in the United States at the time of the founding where inspired by Christian doctrine. So it wouldn't seem like much of stretch to assume that most issues regarding the issue of religion and its free exercise should be understood in a very christian context. By this interpretation, I would have to say the the Sisters are well within their rights to refuse to provide contraceptives and the Administrative Procedure Act in unconstitutional in this regard.
I personally disagree with the supreme court ruling. While the court stated that the sisters are exempt from providing contraceptives for their healthcare due to "religious and moral" reasons is it possible that this is actually creating the opposite scenario? Those who benefit from the help of the sisters may not be catholic and thus would not share their beliefs. But since they are using the sisters healthcare they are forced to look elsewhere for contraceptive care. In this situation it can be seen as the sisters forcing their religion onto others or attempting to establish a religion among their healthcare recipients. However, I do understand why the case ruled in the sisters favor because of contraceptives being in direct contrast against their religion but the Affordable Healthcare Act is a public entity and thus allowing for religious organizations to exert their beliefs onto others thus violating the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Post a Comment