Judge Blocks Trump Administration's Religious and Moral Exceptions to ACA's Birth Control Mandate
A federal judge has agreed to block the Trump administration from enacting certain religious and moral exceptions to the Affordable Care Act that have been widely seen as a means to roll back the mandate for covering birth control medications.
January 14, 2019 at 06:19 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
A federal judge has agreed to block the Trump administration from enacting certain religious and moral exceptions to the Affordable Care Act that have been widely seen as a means to roll back the mandate for covering birth control medications.
U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a nationwide preliminary injunction late Monday barring the federal government from enforcing a version of the ACA that allowed for greatly expanded exceptions to the requirement that companies help cover the cost of contraceptives.
Beetlestone previously blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an interim version of the weakened regulation last year, but the latest injunction, sought by attorneys general in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, was aimed at an updated, finalized version of the rules that had been set to take effect Monday.
In her 65-page opinion, Beetlestone said she needed to grant the preliminary injunction on a nationwide basis.
“Fundamentally, given the harm to the states should the final rules be enforced—numerous citizens losing contraceptive coverage, resulting in 'significant, direct and proprietary harm' to the states in the form of increased use of state-funded contraceptive services, as well as increased costs associated with unintended pregnancies—a nation-wide injunction is required to ensure complete relief to the states,” she said.
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
In a press release issued late Monday, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said the ruling means that 2.5 million women in the Keystone State will not have to pay more for “basic, medically-necessary health care.”
“Today's ruling is a victory for the health and economic independence of women in Pennsylvania and across America,” Shapiro said. “Women need contraception for their health because contraception is medicine, pure and simple. Families rely on the Affordable Care Act's guarantee to afford care; before the ACA, families spent thousands of dollars in co-pays. Congress hasn't changed that law, and the president can't simply ignore it with an illegal rule. I will not allow the federal government—under the direction of the Trump administration—to undermine the rights of women and violate the rule of law.”
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal offered similar sentiments after the ruling, saying the Trump administration lacked the authority to adopt these new rules.
“Today, a federal judge blocked the latest attempt by the Trump administration to undermine the promise of the Affordable Care Act by rolling back our residents' rights to essential preventative health care,” Grewal said. “The court's ruling is a significant victory for women's health. We will keep fighting for New Jersey's women and working families in court, while the Murphy administration continues to make strides to improve women's access to quality health care at the state level.”
The DOJ did not immediately return a message seeking comment late Monday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 2Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 3Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 4Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 5People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250