Late on New Year’s Eve, my phone’s New York Times app alerted me that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had granted a temporary injunction to a Catholic non-profit group, The Little Sisters of the Poor, who had requested a stay in administering a provision in the Affordable Care Act.
Two things struck me in that moment. The first was more logistical—how was Sotomayor simultaneously granting this injunction while also being on TV about to drop the ball to ring in 2014? And second, how could anyone mess with a group called “The Little Sisters of the Poor?” That just sounds wrong.
Let’s take a look at the Little Sisters of the Poor. Members take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and hospitality. They run about 30 health care facilities for the poor, which cover everything from residential and assisted living to intermediate health care. According to their mission statement, their service is based upon their devotion to Christ: “His love urges us to serve him in the poor, and in this way to associate ourselves to his work of salvation.”
Under the Affordable Care Act, religious groups do not necessarily have to provide contraceptives to their employees, however, they do need to fill out a form stating their objection based on their own religious beliefs, which allows an insurer or health administer outside of the religious affiliated organization to provide the coverage. This affects non-profit groups and Catholic schools like Georgetown. Many of these non-profit religious groups (47 nonprofits), such as the Little Sisters of the Poor and the University of Notre Dame, filed lawsuits against this provision because they feel that by even by signing this form, they are indirectly providing the contraceptives.
The Affordable Care Act already grants houses of worship such as churches, mosques, and synagogues total exemption from providing contraceptives. What is the difference between The Little Sisters of the Poor and these houses of worship? Is one more religious than the other?
If Sotomayor did not grant temporary amnesty to the Sisters, they would be fined $100 a day per patient for violating the provision. Do the math. With all of the people that these women serve, they would be fined about 50 million dollars a year, which would quickly force them to shut down completely.
Pushing the women who are serving the poorest of the poor in health care to close their doors because of policies in effect within our own national healthcare system has senselessness written all over it. To take the women who are serving those most oppressed in our nation and to completely wipe out the good work that they do would defeat the intentions of Obamacare.
The Sisters aren’t the only ones affected. If amnesty is not granted to all groups that feel it is against their religion to sign this form, countless religiously-grounded hospitals, schools, and social services across the country will be levied with crippling fines. Many of these groups, like the University of Notre Dame, have agreed to sign the provision until their lawsuit is addressed to avoid these penalties.
Would it make it easy for the Sisters just to sign the form and allow women to receive their contraceptives? Absolutely. But that’s not what this country is about. A Quaker is absolved from fighting in combat because of his pacifist beliefs. A Jewish prisoner can request an alternate meal without pork. Is this fair? Maybe not. Make the Quaker fight like the rest of the country. Make the prisoner eat what’s provided for him. Make the Sisters sign the form. But that’s not what our First Amendment entails.
While violating the Sisters’ religious values angers me, I still see the benefits of covering contraceptives for women.
I’m a woman. I get it. About 99 percent of all sexually active women between the ages of 15 and 44 use birth control at some point. Not to mention the fact that birth control can be used for other medical conditions such as relief of menstrual cramps, prevention of ovarian cysts, or ovarian cancer. I don’t think that all women should have to pay thousands of dollars for contraceptives just because their employer does not believe in using them. Women should have reproductive freedom, however, I don’t think these Sisters are trying to take away this freedom.
There needs to be a balance between providing women what they need while upholding religious values. There are ways the government can provide contraceptives to women independent from employer health care. That a liberal justice is the one to grant this temporary injunction presents optimism that the Court will see the side of the Sisters. Time can only tell what my next New York Times update will alert me about progress in the Court.
