Catholic News 2
LARNACA, Cyprus (AP) -- A man described as "psychologically unstable" hijacked a flight Tuesday from Egypt to Cyprus and threatened to blow it up. His explosives turned out to be fake, and he surrendered with all passengers released unharmed after a bizarre six-hour standoff....
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- The North Carolina governor's race has suddenly become a referendum on discrimination....
CHICAGO (AP) -- Many relatives and friends providing financial support or care to people with dementia have dipped into their retirement savings, cut back on spending and sold assets to pay for expenses tied to the disease, according to a survey released Wednesday by the Alzheimer's Association....
WASHINGTON (AP) -- There may be a reason why people have trouble seeing while driving at night, and it's not their eyesight. A new rating of the headlights of more than 30 midsized car models gave only one model a grade of "good."...
NAYPYITAW, Myanmar (AP) -- Htin Kyaw, a confidante of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, was sworn in Wednesday as Myanmar's president, ushering in the first democratically elected government into office after decades of military rule....
BROOKFIELD, Wis. (AP) -- Donald Trump, turning his focus to Wisconsin even as another controversy cast a shadow over his campaign, said Tuesday he will no longer honor his pledge to support the eventual Republican pick for president. And his two Republican rivals, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, also refused to say they would support Trump or whoever is the nominee....
Washington D.C., Mar 29, 2016 / 04:42 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked for parties in the Little Sisters’ case to submit alternative means, if possible, of ensuring contraceptive coverage while maintaining religious freedom.“This is an excellent development. Clearly the Supreme Court understood the Sisters' concern that the government's current scheme forces them to violate their religion,” Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Little Sisters, stated on Tuesday.The Court instructed both the plaintiffs in the case – the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Archdiocese of Washington, the group Priests for Life, and several Christian colleges – and the administration to submit supplemental briefs answering whether employees can receive contraceptive coverage while maintaining the religious freedom of the employers who object to providing such coverage. If a way exists, the brief...
Washington D.C., Mar 29, 2016 / 04:42 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked for parties in the Little Sisters’ case to submit alternative means, if possible, of ensuring contraceptive coverage while maintaining religious freedom.
“This is an excellent development. Clearly the Supreme Court understood the Sisters' concern that the government's current scheme forces them to violate their religion,” Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Little Sisters, stated on Tuesday.
The Court instructed both the plaintiffs in the case – the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Archdiocese of Washington, the group Priests for Life, and several Christian colleges – and the administration to submit supplemental briefs answering whether employees can receive contraceptive coverage while maintaining the religious freedom of the employers who object to providing such coverage. If a way exists, the brief should explain how it works.
At the heart of the case Zubik v. Burwell is the administration’s mandate that employers provide cost-free coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and drugs that can cause abortions, and the so-called “accommodation” offered to objecting non-profit employers.
This accommodation involves the employer sending the government a form stating its objection to providing the coverage. The government notifies their insurer (or third-party administrator for self-insured parties) of their objection and the insurer provides the coverage separately.
The plaintiffs like the Little Sisters – as well as many other non-profits – argue that this still forces them, under threat of heavy fines, to cooperate with practices they believe are immoral.
They say they are still facilitating access to these drugs in their health plans by sending the form to the federal government because they know the coverage will ultimately be provided. Furthermore, they argue the government is unlawfully “hijacking” their health plan which is between them and their insurer.
Meanwhile, the administration argues that contraception coverage in employer health plans is in the common interest and that any other method of the government separately providing this coverage on the public exchanges or through Medicaid or Medicare would be insufficient to achieve the universal coverage that Congress envisioned in its health care law.
An alternative method – if it exists – of ensuring the contraceptive coverage while not implicating objecting parties in facilitating access to this coverage should be found, the Court stated Tuesday.
“The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners,” the order stated.
“For example,” it added, “the parties should consider a situation in which petitioners would contract to provide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds.”
“Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees.”
The insurer, aware that the employer has a religious objection to the coverage, would then take care of setting up “cost-free contraceptive coverage” for the employee independent of cost to the employer and independent of the employer’s health plan.
The order comes after oral arguments in the case took place at the Supreme Court on March 23. The question of an alternative method being possible was raised during the arguments by Justice Elena Kagan, who asked if any “acceptable” method of “notification” existed for objecting employers while ensuring that women still receive “contraceptive coverage.”
“I'm asking whether there's any accommodation that would result in the women employees getting contraceptive coverage seamlessly through an employer-¬based plan that you would find acceptable,” Justice Kagan asked Noel Francisco, who was arguing for the petitioners.
“Your Honor, possibly so, possibly not,” he replied, adding that “we've not been offered that kind of alternative to consider.” The “more distance” there is between the objecting employer and the contraceptive coverage, he added, the “less problematic” it would probably be for the plaintiffs.
Justice Kagan followed up, asking what scenarios might exist with an “acceptable” distance.
“Enough distance is we file the notice of objection, and the government furthers its interest in the same way it furthers its interest with respect to all of the other employees who don't get coverage from an employer-¬based plan,” Francisco replied, referring to the large corporations like Visa and PepsiCo that are exempt from the contraceptive mandate because their pre-existing health plans have been “grandfathered” in to the law’s regulations.
Another scenario Francisco floated would be if the government paid for an “uber-insurance policy” where one carrier provided all the mandated contraceptive coverage and the plaintiffs used that carrier without having to notify them of their objection. The coverage would be provided separately.
He concluded that “it's quite clear that the government has alternatives because it's the same alternatives that it uses for everybody else. And if all of those alternatives are fine with them, they at least need evidence explaining why they're not fine for us as well.”
By Carol ZimmermannWASHINGTON (CNS) -- Less than a week after the Supreme Court heard oralarguments about the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive requirement, the courtreleased an order requesting that additional briefs be submitted showing if andhow contraceptive insurance coverage could be obtained by employees throughtheir insurance companies without directly involving the religious employers objectingto this coverage.The order wasreleased the afternoon of March 29, just six days after the justices heard oralarguments in Zubik v. Burwell, a consolidated case involving the Little Sistersof the Poor, Priests for Life, the Pennsylvania dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie, and the Archdiocese of Washington. The groups are challengingthe Affordable Care Act's mandate that most religious and other employers must cover contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients throughemployer-provided health insurance.Religious groupswho did not fit the narrow exemption to the contraceptive mandate ...
By Carol Zimmermann
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Less than a week after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive requirement, the court released an order requesting that additional briefs be submitted showing if and how contraceptive insurance coverage could be obtained by employees through their insurance companies without directly involving the religious employers objecting to this coverage.
The order was released the afternoon of March 29, just six days after the justices heard oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, a consolidated case involving the Little Sisters of the Poor, Priests for Life, the Pennsylvania dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie, and the Archdiocese of Washington. The groups are challenging the Affordable Care Act's mandate that most religious and other employers must cover contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients through employer-provided health insurance.
Religious groups who did not fit the narrow exemption to the contraceptive mandate given to churches and religious groups argue that they cannot participate in providing contraceptives without violating their beliefs and that the Obama administration's "work-around" allowing them to acknowledge their opposition and thereby trigger an arrangement for a third party to provide the coverage is still objectionable.
The court's March 29 order specifically outlined the procedures that objecting religious employers must follow if they do not want to provide insurance coverage of contraceptives and went on to suggest that the groups could contract a third party to provide health insurance for their employees, but they would need to inform the insurance company that they did not want the plan to include contraceptive coverage that they find objectionable.
The insurance companies, the order said, could "separately notify petitioners' employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners' health plan."
With the plan, the objecting religious employers would not have to submit a form to the government or their insurance companies about the coverage.
The Supreme Court's order also pointed out that the parties involved in this case may have "other proposals along similar lines," but they should avoid repeating what they mentioned in previous briefings.
The additional information should be submitted by April 12 and should be limited to 25 pages for the petitioners and April 20, and no more than 20 pages, for respondents, the order said.
The court's request for more information came out the same day the court voted 4-4 in a case challenging the fees that labor unions collect from nonmembers.
Many have speculated that with Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February, the current court of eight justices will result in a number of split decisions.
After the oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, there was plenty of speculation that the court seemed poised for a split decision in this case as well, which would uphold the lower courts' decision and mean the contraceptive mandate for religious groups will be interpreted differently in different areas of the country.
- - -
Follow Zimmermann on Twitter: @carolmaczim.
- - -
Copyright © 2016 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. www.catholicnews.com. All rights reserved. Republishing or redistributing of CNS content, including by framing or similar means without prior permission, is prohibited. You may link to stories on our public site. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To request permission for republishing or redistributing of CNS content, please contact permissions at cns@catholicnews.com.
SYCAMORE, Ill. (AP) -- A former security guard serving a life sentence in the 1957 slaying of a 7-year-old Illinois girl made an emotional statement declaring his innocence and pleaded with a judge Tuesday to consider his bid for freedom as soon as possible, citing a prosecutor's scathing review of the investigation that landed him in prison....
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Latest on campaign 2016 as the candidates converge on Wisconsin ahead of its April 5 primary (all times Eastern Daylight Time):...
