The Impact of a Court: Recent Rulings on Reproductive Rights
By Margaux Bauerlein and Stephanie Remy, 8/26/2020
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania addressed a hot button issue: the dividing line between first amendment’s protection of religious freedom and a woman’s right to choose. Legal questions on a woman’s right to choose and the degree to which hospitals, employers, and legal systems can infringe upon that right have dominated court dockets and headlines for years. While the court made a decision on this matter in Roe v. Wade, cases attempting to challenge it have been argued in front of the Supreme Court in recent months.
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul v. Pennsylvania was granted permission to be argued in front of the Supreme Court on January 17, 2020. It was argued on May 6 and decided on July 8, 2020.
The case begins with the Women’s Health Amendment to the Affordable Care Act which allowed nonprofit religious employers to be exempt from covering contraceptives in their health plans. In 2014, the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. determined that for-profit organizations could also be exempt on religious grounds. More recently, in 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services, under the direction of the Trump Administration, expanded the exemption to include other entities. Practically, this widened the exemption to allow contraceptive coverage to be denied on moral grounds in addition to religious ones.
Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged this ruling on the basis that it violates the Constitution, the Federal Anti-Discrimination Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. This case merged with Trump v. Pennsylvania as both cases discussed the same legal principle, asking “Did the federal government lawfully exempt these groups from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage?” Simply put, did the government make this change legally?
The decision was split 7-2 in the Supreme Court, with Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor dissenting from the majority opinion. The decision was in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor and stated that federal government agencies - the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury - had the authority to expand the exemptions. Moreover, it stated that it was done in a manner that was consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor dissented with the majority opinion. Ginsburg argues that the Women’s Health Amendment to the Affordable Care Act allows for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to determine what the women’s health services are. She emphasized that the HRSA is not supposed to provide merely the minimum services. In her dissenting opinion Justice Ginsburg wrote, “this Court has taken a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs...Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.”
What does this mean for women? Ginsburg explains that “this [Court’s decision] leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.” The impact is not insignificant, as according to Justice Ginsburg “between 70,500 and 126,400 women would immediately lose access to no-cost contraceptive services.”
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania addressed a hot button issue: the dividing line between first amendment’s protection of religious freedom and a woman’s right to choose. Legal questions on a woman’s right to choose and the degree to which hospitals, employers, and legal systems can infringe upon that right have dominated court dockets and headlines for years. While the court made a decision on this matter in Roe v. Wade, cases attempting to challenge it have been argued in front of the Supreme Court in recent months.
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul v. Pennsylvania was granted permission to be argued in front of the Supreme Court on January 17, 2020. It was argued on May 6 and decided on July 8, 2020.
The case begins with the Women’s Health Amendment to the Affordable Care Act which allowed nonprofit religious employers to be exempt from covering contraceptives in their health plans. In 2014, the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. determined that for-profit organizations could also be exempt on religious grounds. More recently, in 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services, under the direction of the Trump Administration, expanded the exemption to include other entities. Practically, this widened the exemption to allow contraceptive coverage to be denied on moral grounds in addition to religious ones.
Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged this ruling on the basis that it violates the Constitution, the Federal Anti-Discrimination Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. This case merged with Trump v. Pennsylvania as both cases discussed the same legal principle, asking “Did the federal government lawfully exempt these groups from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage?” Simply put, did the government make this change legally?
The decision was split 7-2 in the Supreme Court, with Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor dissenting from the majority opinion. The decision was in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor and stated that federal government agencies - the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury - had the authority to expand the exemptions. Moreover, it stated that it was done in a manner that was consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor dissented with the majority opinion. Ginsburg argues that the Women’s Health Amendment to the Affordable Care Act allows for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to determine what the women’s health services are. She emphasized that the HRSA is not supposed to provide merely the minimum services. In her dissenting opinion Justice Ginsburg wrote, “this Court has taken a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs...Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.”
What does this mean for women? Ginsburg explains that “this [Court’s decision] leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.” The impact is not insignificant, as according to Justice Ginsburg “between 70,500 and 126,400 women would immediately lose access to no-cost contraceptive services.”
The Catholic Court
In a 5-4 vote on Monday, July 29th, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts casted the deciding vote, aligning with the Court’s four liberal justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer. However, with a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court and a liberal Justice seat on the table sometime in the near future, liberal decisions may become a thing of the past.
Roberts declined to sign onto the plurality’s reasoning written by Justice Stephen Breyer, instead offering the doctrine of stare decisis to explain his reasoning. Stare decisis in layman’s terms means court precedent. In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law nearly identical to the Louisiana law in June Medical Services v. Russo. Four years ago, Roberts dissented against the majority decision to strike down this law. However, at his foundations, Roberts is “an institutionalist concerned with the durability of the law and respect for the Court” according to analysis offered by The University of Pittsburgh’s legal news commentary site, Jurist. Roberts’ decision is also aligned with the ruling from a previous Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to an abortion. In the seventy-four cases the Supreme Court heard in 2019, Chief Justice Roberts was a part of the majority decision in all but two of them, often relying on legal precedent and the public opinion. This case was no different, as according to a 2019 Pew Research poll, sixty-one percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in “all/most cases.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the principal dissenting opinion, partially joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas. Two out of the three others wrote separate opinions as well. Along with being conservative justices, all four men either grew up in the Catholic faith or are currently practicing Catholics. In fact, out of the nine Supreme Court Justices, five justices--Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas--are Catholic. Over fifty-percent of the Supreme Court is Catholic whereas Catholics make up twenty-two percent of the U.S. population. The disproportionate representation is largely the result of the tendency of Republican presidents to appoint Catholic Supreme Court justices, because male Catholic judges can be regularly counted upon to vote against abortion, combining both a priority for Convservative politicians and Catholic doctrine.
President Trump has successfully been able to use the Supreme Court as a rallying point for electoral support through appointing conservative justices to tip the ideological balance of the Court. According to The Washington Post, twenty-six percent of individuals polled cited the Supreme Court as their primary reason for supporting Trump. In a CNN poll, out of the voters who sighted the Supreme Court as their “most important factor” when voting, a majority of these voters cast their ballot for Trump. With the return of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s pancreatic cancer, appointing a third Supreme Court Justice will be a major Trump talking-point in the upcoming presidential election. In comparison, Democratic nominee Joe Biden has pledged to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court, causing heavy speculation as to who he will nominate, since there are only five black women in the Court of Appeals, where Justices typically matriculate from, and all will either be sixty-eight or older this year.
If President Trump is ousted from office, his politics won’t leave the American judicial system. Trump has become the U.S. President with the most appellate court nominations - a whopping fifty-one nominations. Appellate judges serve for life and Trump’s judges, who now make up over one quarter of the entire appellate branch, have been more openly against gay marriage and government funding for abortion. Trump may leave office but his conservative legacy will endure for years.
In a 5-4 vote on Monday, July 29th, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts casted the deciding vote, aligning with the Court’s four liberal justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer. However, with a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court and a liberal Justice seat on the table sometime in the near future, liberal decisions may become a thing of the past.
Roberts declined to sign onto the plurality’s reasoning written by Justice Stephen Breyer, instead offering the doctrine of stare decisis to explain his reasoning. Stare decisis in layman’s terms means court precedent. In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law nearly identical to the Louisiana law in June Medical Services v. Russo. Four years ago, Roberts dissented against the majority decision to strike down this law. However, at his foundations, Roberts is “an institutionalist concerned with the durability of the law and respect for the Court” according to analysis offered by The University of Pittsburgh’s legal news commentary site, Jurist. Roberts’ decision is also aligned with the ruling from a previous Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to an abortion. In the seventy-four cases the Supreme Court heard in 2019, Chief Justice Roberts was a part of the majority decision in all but two of them, often relying on legal precedent and the public opinion. This case was no different, as according to a 2019 Pew Research poll, sixty-one percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in “all/most cases.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the principal dissenting opinion, partially joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas. Two out of the three others wrote separate opinions as well. Along with being conservative justices, all four men either grew up in the Catholic faith or are currently practicing Catholics. In fact, out of the nine Supreme Court Justices, five justices--Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas--are Catholic. Over fifty-percent of the Supreme Court is Catholic whereas Catholics make up twenty-two percent of the U.S. population. The disproportionate representation is largely the result of the tendency of Republican presidents to appoint Catholic Supreme Court justices, because male Catholic judges can be regularly counted upon to vote against abortion, combining both a priority for Convservative politicians and Catholic doctrine.
President Trump has successfully been able to use the Supreme Court as a rallying point for electoral support through appointing conservative justices to tip the ideological balance of the Court. According to The Washington Post, twenty-six percent of individuals polled cited the Supreme Court as their primary reason for supporting Trump. In a CNN poll, out of the voters who sighted the Supreme Court as their “most important factor” when voting, a majority of these voters cast their ballot for Trump. With the return of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s pancreatic cancer, appointing a third Supreme Court Justice will be a major Trump talking-point in the upcoming presidential election. In comparison, Democratic nominee Joe Biden has pledged to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court, causing heavy speculation as to who he will nominate, since there are only five black women in the Court of Appeals, where Justices typically matriculate from, and all will either be sixty-eight or older this year.
If President Trump is ousted from office, his politics won’t leave the American judicial system. Trump has become the U.S. President with the most appellate court nominations - a whopping fifty-one nominations. Appellate judges serve for life and Trump’s judges, who now make up over one quarter of the entire appellate branch, have been more openly against gay marriage and government funding for abortion. Trump may leave office but his conservative legacy will endure for years.
