This one didn't get as much attention as the Hobby Lobby case, but it some ways it's just as important. The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Wheaton College, a Christian institution based in Illinois, does not have to submit EBSA Form 700 to the government, nor does it have to submit copies to its health insurer or to third-party administrators, in order to relieve itself of the responsibility of providing contraception coverage to employees.
It might seem like a fight over a mere administrative detail, since the employes are still going to get the coverage and the government and/or the insurer are going to pay for it. But I think it establishes an important principle. What Wheaton was arguing is that the government has no right to mandate that it play any role whatsoever in facilitating contraception coverage. It goes beyond the expenditure of money. Even requiring Wheaton to submit a form requires it to play a role, and even it doesn't cost Wheaton a dime, it's still the government forcing the college to take action to facilitate something that it objects to on religious grounds.
Here's how the Court's unsigned opinion dealt with the issue:
Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant’s employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives. The Government contends that the applicant’s health insurance issuer and third-party administrator are required by federal law to provide full contraception coverage regardless of whether the applicant completes EBSA Form 700.
The applicant contends, by contrast, that the obligations of its health insurance issuer and third-party administrators are dependent on their receipt of notice that the applicant objects to the contraception coverage requirement. But the applicant has already notified the Government – without using EBSA Form 700 – that it meets the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds. Nothing in this order precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraception coverage under the Act.
The principle at issue here is whether it's sufficient for Wheaton to simply say no, or whether it must also take an additional step to facilitate the other parties involved stepping in to provide the coverage. What Wheaton is saying is, in essence, leave us out of it entirely. You can argue that filling out a form is no big deal, but that's not the point. The point is the requiring them to fill out the form involves them in the process, and that - every bit as much as making them pay for it - forces them to be a party to something that they find objectionable on religious grounds.
The ruling is important because it represents yet another ruling of the court affirming an institution's religious rights. It is also important because this so-called "accommodation" the government offered to Christian organizations was always a shell game. You pay your insurer a given amount to provide health coverage. To argue that this one benefit will be paid for by the insurer and not by the insured party is a joke. What they have to do is going to affect the cost of your premiums overall. The insurers are not going to simply bear that cost without trying to adjust its overall pricing structure to make up for it.
The whole thing is just another example of why the government shouldn't be mandating the terms of agreements between private parties. It inevitably results in disputes like this, and you can't blame the parties involved. They are trying to maneuver their way through a law that is absurd on its face and can't possibly work as its supporters claim. Hopefully the Supreme Court will have lots more opportunities to chip away at ObamaCare, and will take advantage of every single one.
