On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor for the second time, as the group of nuns pleads once more for a religious exemption to Obamacare’s absurd contraceptive mandate. This case is a stellar example showcasing the importance of religious liberty — while also reminding everyone why Obamacare was such an authoritarian debacle in the first place.
The Little Sisters of the Poor first took their case to the Supreme Court several years after Obamacare was implemented, since the healthcare legislation required employers and insurance companies to cover birth control, and the sisters felt that they, along with other religious groups and organizations, felt they should be exempt. The Supreme Court didn’t exactly punt the case, but they did kick it back to the states for resolution — and to allow time for a new member of the Supreme Court to be confirmed.
The case was not resolved, and here’s why.
The Trump administration issued a rule that granted respite to groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, broadening the religious exemption to the birth control mandate (which never should have existed in the first place). In response, the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued the federal government, claiming Trump had no right to broaden the exemption. Because of their obvious, compelling interest in this issue, the Little Sisters of the Poor intervened, and the case eventually worked its way to the Supreme Court — again.
I imagine the Supreme Court will consider the original mandate, which Hobby Lobby petitioned the court over and won, but mostly focus on the question of Trump’s authority to broaden the exemption, as well as the most fascinating aspect of the case: Even if there was a valid contraceptive mandate, why do nuns need to abide by it?
Of all the people a woman might approach for birth control, it boggles the mind one would be compelled to go to a religious institution, let alone a group of nuns, and demand with government force that they provide you with contraceptives. That’s like asking People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for steakhouse recommendations and then demanding the group to cook you a T-bone. (Medium-rare, of course.)
The notion that the state should have any interest in forcing insurance companies to cover contraception is still so preposterous to me, even after a decade, I can’t believe it’s still up for debate. That nuns would be forced to provide it (should anyone have ever bothered to ask them) is so offensive, even grotesque, it pains me to see the litigation linger for these eight years.
Often, when a case has reached the Supreme Court (only about 80 do each year), the cases are so complicated and each argument so credible that it makes for a fascinating debate. Yet, this does not appear to be the case here. The opposition to the Little Sisters of the Poor’s religious rights seems biased and, frankly, obsessively punitive.
Catholic Association Policy Advisor Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie summarized the importance of the case nicely in a statement:
Let’s hope the Supreme Court rules handily in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, so they can finally fulfill their calling without the burden of litigation over their head.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
