Hobby Lobby Part II Is Barreling Towards The Supreme Court | ThinkProgress

In other ACA news, we have the fall-out of Wheaton College v. Burwell, or a perfect example of moving the goal-posts:

Nevertheless, some employers, including the employers who sought out Wednesday’s order from Alito, remain opposed even to this accommodation. Because sending the letter will set in motion a chain of events that may lead to someone using contraception, conservative “religious liberty” groups have taken the position that sending the letter would make employers “complicit” in the act of providing birth control.

Thus far, the lower courts have not been particularly sympathetic to this argument. As the Third Circuit wrote in the decision temporarily stayed by Alito, “[f]ederal law, not the religious organization’s signing and mailing the form, requires health-care insurers, along with third-party administrators of self-insured plans, to cover contraceptive services.” Thus, the plaintiffs’ “real objection” isn’t to sending a form or letter to the federal government; it is to “what happens after the form is provided—that is, to the actions of the insurance issuers and the third-party administrators, required by law, once the [plaintiffs] give notice of their objection.” Federal law does not grant these plaintiffs “a religious veto against plan providers’ compliance with those regulations, nor the right to enlist the government to effectuate such a religious veto against legally required conduct of third parties.”

Nevertheless, Alito’s order is a warning that this issue will not remain in the lower courts forever. Indeed, the Third Circuit case provides the Supreme Court with a vehicle that it could use as soon as next fall to consider whether the send-the-letter or the fill-out-the-form options will survive contact with the justices, or whether federal law does, indeed, give religious employers “the right to enlist the government to effectuate . . . a religious veto against legally required conduct of third parties.”

Hobby Lobby Part II Is Barreling Towards The Supreme Court | ThinkProgress

Americans United Fights In Federal Court For Student And Staff Access To Contraceptives At Notre Dame | Americans United

“The court asked some tough questions and is clearly giving this a very in-depth look,” said Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, who argued the case. “We hope they agree with our position that the federal government had very compelling reasons to ensure women’s access to contraceptive benefits, and that it has sought to provide that access while showing great sensitivity to religious objections and concerns.”

The dispute in University of Notre Dame v. Burwell centers on a regulation issued under the Affordable Care Act permitting religious nonprofits to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to employees and students by notifying either their insurance company or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of their religious objection. If a non-profit opts out, federal law requires that their insurance company then separately make contraceptive coverage available to affected employees and students at no cost to, and without further involvement by, the non-profit.

The 7th Circuit Court ruled 2-1 in February 2014 that the regulation does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But Americans United, which intervened in the case on behalf of three Notre Dame students, was back before the appeals court today because the Supreme Court in March ordered the lower court to review its decision in light of Hobby Lobby.

Americans United has argued that no federal appeals court has accepted Notre Dame’s argument – either before or since the Hobby Lobby decision. The students just want to ensure that they have access to contraceptives, which they cannot afford to purchase on their own.

Americans United Fights In Federal Court For Student And Staff Access To Contraceptives At Notre Dame | Americans United

How One Religious Organization Bankrolls America’s Social Conservative Movement | ThinkProgress

In 1882, a group of Catholic men gathered together by New Haven, CT pastor Father Michael J. McGivney incorporated an organization to provide for the families of its deceased members. More than 125 years later, the Knights of Columbus boasts of more than 1.8 million members and of “donating more than $167.5 million to charitable needs and projects” in 2012. Among its members: presidential 2016 hopeful Jeb Bush (R), Speaker of the House John Boehner (R), and Justice Samuel Alito.

But while much of the Knights’ charitable efforts in recent years have supported purely altruistic causes such as the Special Olympics and Habitat for Humanity, millions of their charitable dollars have funded a very socially conservative ideological agenda: opposing abortion, LGBT rights, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and pornography, while supporting public funding for religious organizations.

[,,,]
In a November interview, the organizations’ top official noted that the Knights’ “first principle is charity,” and that its success has come due to its focus on “mission integrity.” But for several decades, that charity has also included work to overturn Roe v. Wade. Each year, the organization reaffirms, by resolution, its “deep and historic commitment to oppose any governmental action or policy that promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or other offenses against life.” In so doing, the Knights also reaffirm their “long-standing policies of not inviting to any Knights of Columbus event, persons, especially public officials or candidates for public office, who do not support the legal protection of unborn children, or who advocate the legalization of assisted suicide or euthanasia.”

[,,,]
Beyond just words, the Knights of Columbus have invested millions into the “culture of life” agenda. Between local chapters and the national organization, the Knights’ “Ultrasound Initiative” have provided more than $14 million worth of ultrasound machines to local “pro-life pregnancy care centers,” based on the belief that “a free ultrasound exam often helps an abortion minded woman to decide to choose life for herself and her child.” They have also worked to defeat a successful stem-cell research amendment in Michigan ($100,000), to pass an unsuccessful proposal to ban public funding of abortion in Florida ($100,000), and to oppose a defeated a Massachusetts initiative to allow physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients ($450,000).

The Knights of Columbus see this as a charitable rather than social issue. Citing Catholic values and the words of Pope Francis, Cullen explained, “we believe that many of our contributions across the board have a social justice component. We do not understand how providing ultrasound machines to pregnancy resource centers is somehow a ‘social’ issue, but building houses with Habitat for Humanity is not.”

How One Religious Organization Bankrolls America’s Social Conservative Movement | ThinkProgress

Administration offers new tweak to birth control rule - The Washington Post

So just how asinine are the objections to the ACA becoming,,,

First we had Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius who claimed that being required to fill out a short form violates their religious liberty. The court ruled, "[t]o meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, applicants need not use the form prescribed by the Government and need not send copies to third-party administrators."

Next was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling which not only dismantled United States v. Lee (1982) - an employer cannot impose their religious beliefs on their employees - but added confusion by stating,

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage,,, Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government's aims,,,

In short, fill out a form, you know the one they told the Little Sister they didn't have to use. Yea, OK, that will work,,,for 5 days.

The kicker in all this, Wheaton College v. Burwell where the Court once again reversed course and granted a temporary exemption from the requirement that they fill out the form. [As an aside: Wheaton basically argued, as did the Little Sisters, that filling out the form itself is a violation of their religious liberty. But as some have pointed out Wheaton objects to the "work-around" itself as their health plan would still be required to provide contraceptive coverage and it doesn't want that to happen even though it doesn't have to pay for it.]

That brings us to where we stand today,,,

The new federal guidelines address a set of ongoing legal challenges to the contraceptive requirement raised by dozens of religious nonprofit groups, such as hospitals and charities, that could again put the contraception mandate before the Supreme Court. The religious nonprofits are challenging the administration's already existing opt-out, in which the groups can ask a third party to provide the contraception coverage to their employees. However, the nonprofits say that filling out the form notifying the third party violates their religious beliefs.

The nonprofits can now directly inform the Department of Health and Human Services of their religious objections. HHS and the Labor Department will then coordinate contraception coverage with insurers and third party administrators. The nonprofits still have the option to notify a third party directly.

Which boils down to this, Hobby Lobby is appeased as is Wheaton College.  BUT,,,

Several of the country’s biggest faith groups on Friday said the revised rule was still problematic because it didn’t fully exempt organizations – for-profit or non-profit – with religious objections.

"Here we go again,” said Russell Moore, president of the policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant denomination. “What we see here is another revised attempt to settle issues of religious conscience with accounting maneuvers. This new policy doesn't get at the primary problem.”-

Now the religionist want to move the goalpost yet again by claiming that they cannot take ANY action that will set in motion a chain of events that leads to someone receiving contraception, as doing so would make them complicit in the act of providing birth control.

Sorry to say but this debacle is no longer about the ACA or the birth control mandate. It goes much deeper and many fail to see where this is leading:

If you can be exempt from an insurance law that is supposed to bring medical care to everyone, why not just ask to be exempt (as some of these groups have) from pay equity statutes, from civil rights laws (effecting lesbian and gay Americans)? There is no stopping this once you go down this slope of exemptions based on religious claims for FOR PROFIT COMPANIES.

Administration offers new tweak to birth control rule - The Washington Post