Last week, the country was transfixed by the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was upheld in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. This decision especially impacts women, who systemically pay more for health insurance. This health insurance gender gap is so great that the National Women's Law Center found that, "in the states that have not banned gender rating, more than 90 percent of the best-selling health plans charge women more than men." The ACA will close this gender gap:
[...] the law broadly prohibits sex discrimination under “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.
This isn't the only way that the Affordable Care Act decision will help women, though. The same day as the widely-publicized National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was released, the Court made a second decision regarding the ACA: it declined to hear another case, Seven-Sky v. Holder. This case alleges that the ACA violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by requiring employers to not deny individuals coverage for contraception. RFRA is a statute that prevents federal laws from placing a "substantial burden" on religious exercise unless the government has a compelling interest in enacting the law. In this case, the plaintiff held that they:
[...] believe in trusting in God to protect [them] from illness or injury [and did not] want to be forced to buy health insurance coverage.
The district court as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected this assertion, stating there was no such burden. This precedent means good things for the contraception coverage rule; if a person being required to get health insurance despite their religious beliefs doesn't trigger RFRA, then the religious beliefs of a woman's employer certainly won't. Rather, the Supreme Court has held in the past that letting employers circumvent laws like this under the grounds of religious liberty instead "...operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees."
Dictating how an employee uses a benefit such as health insurance is like allowing an employer to dictate how an employee may spend portions of her paycheck. Just as the right for employees to spend their paychecks however they wish does not place a "substantial burden" on the religious liberty of an employer, the contraception coverage rule similarly does not violate an employer's rights.
While this doesn't stop groups such as the Becket Fund and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from threatening to press forward with lawsuits, their protests are unlikely to be successful, especially with the newly-enforced RFRA precedent.
Thankfully, the law appears to finally be working for, and not against, women. Because of the Supreme Court's decision(s), the law that provides millions of women access to affordable birth control is still in place, giving a victory to both women and basic fairness.
Caitlin Lowell is a summer intern for the ACLU of Maine. She is a rising sophomore at Columbia who is pursuing a double major in political science and American studies.
