“The Obama administration compromise would have required objecting organizations simply to inform the federal government that they indeed object. From there, the government would have worked with the objectors’ health insurers to offer costless contraception directly to their employees. Beyond giving notice, the objectors would have suffered no further involvement and paid nothing for any contraceptive care their employees received…

“The mandate’s critics argue that the mere act of giving notice would be intolerable, and that nothing short of offering full exemptions to practically any employer that wants one will do. Federal law demands special care for the concerns of the faithful in striking a balance between religious liberty and governmental interests. It does not insist that there be no balance at all. The Obama administration accommodated all sides in good faith. The court should respect the principled balance that the Obama administration struck.”
Editorial Board, Washington Post

“Every member of the Supreme Court’s [conservative] majority has, in the past, expressed sympathy for religious objectors seeking exemptions from a generally applicable law. But each has also expressed a desire to limit federal agencies’ discretion to make policy. And on Wednesday, several of those conservative justices appeared to realize that these two goals are in tension — at least in the two Pennsylvania cases… [The cases] primarily ask whether the Trump administration has the power to give religious objectors a sweeping exemption, regardless of whether such an exemption is required by law…

“At least three of the Court’s [conservatives], Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns that the Trump administration may not have this power… [In a 2019 opinion] Gorsuch proposed revising the largely defunct ‘nondelegation doctrine,’ a constitutional doctrine briefly used in the 1930s to restrict Congress’s power to delegate authority to the Roosevelt administration. While Gorsuch’s opinion in that 2019 case, Gundy v. United States, is vague, it suggests that Congress must draft laws very precisely if it wants to delegate power to a federal agency… This suggests the possibility of a cross-partisan coalition to strike down the broad exemption.”
Ian Millhiser, Vox

“Allowing employers to opt-out of covering birth control in their insurance plans serves as a barrier for women trying to get the contraceptive method they need, deserve, and is right for them. Effectively, this would permit employers or insurance providers to decide about something as basic as who can use birth control and what methods they can use. Allowing such interference creates a slippery slope which would undoubtedly mean interference in other areas of health care. What’s next?…

“99 percent of women who have ever had sex with men have used a method of contraception at some point in their lives. According to our data, 76 percent of adults believe that birth control is a basic part of women’s health care and 86 percent support access to the full range of birth control methods — with strong support regardless of race, ethnicity, region, and political affiliation. Given the wide use of contraception and its broad public support we should not be putting up barriers to accessing it, we should be looking for ways to make it more accessible.”
Gillian Sealy, The Hill