ILNews

Certain religious organizations may not have to provide contraceptives

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Religious employers – primarily churches and other non-profits – will no longer have to provide contraceptive coverage if they have religious objections under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if proposed amendments by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are implemented.

The department released the notice of proposed rulemaking filed Friday, seeking comment on the proposals by April 8. Under the proposed accommodations, the eligible organizations wouldn’t have to pay, contract or arrange for any contraceptive coverage if they object on religious grounds. But plan participants would receive contraceptive coverage through a separate individual health insurance policy without cost sharing or additional premiums, according to HHS.

The rules are available for viewing here.

The PPACA, enacted in March 2010, requires non-grandfathered group health plans and insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage to provide certain preventative health services without imposing cost sharing, which includes preventive care and screening for women. Many religious organizations, such as schools and hospitals, objected to this provision and have filed lawsuits.

For-profit secular businesses have also challenged the requirement in court, but they would not be exempted from providing these areas of coverage under the mandate issued last week. The federal agencies involved in these rule changes say that the religious accommodations in related areas of federal law, such as the exemption for religious organizations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are only available to nonprofit religious organizations.

A lawsuit filed by the University of Notre Dame last year challenging the requirement under the PPACA was dismissed in January in federal court.

On Jan. 30, however, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a private, secular company in southern Indiana does not have to provide its employees contraceptive and other coverage that conflict with the employer’s Catholic beliefs, pending the appeal in the lawsuit. The federal appellate court combined William D. Grote III, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, 13-1077, with a similar challenge out of Illinois.

Eligible organizations under this mandate will provide a self-certification to the health insurance issuer, or the organization would notify the third-party administrator in the case of self-insured group health plans, to work with a health insurance company to provide the separate coverage.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT