EBSA Form 700

Last updated
EBSA Form 700, version as of January 1, 2014 EBSA-Form-700 January 2014.pdf
EBSA Form 700, version as of January 1, 2014
EBSA Form 700, revised version as of August 2014 EBSA Form 700 August 2014.pdf
EBSA Form 700, revised version as of August 2014

EBSA Form 700 is a form that the United States Government had required certain non-profit organizations to complete and submit, beginning January 1, 2014, in order to claim an exemption from the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act. After the U.S. Supreme court issued temporary injunctions, preventing any penalty against some non-profit institutions who objected to filing the form, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a new version of the form making it clear that organizations can, instead object by a letter. [1]

Contents

Affordable Care Act

In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which relies on the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to specify what kinds of preventive care for women should be covered in certain employer-based health plans. HHS exempted churches (including houses of worship, such as synagogues and mosques) and their integrated auxiliaries, associations of churches, and any religious order that engages exclusively in religious activity. Other non-profit organizations that object to any required contraception coverage were to file an EBSA Form 700 with their insurance company notifying them of the non-profit's objection. The insurance company would then provide the contraceptive coverage directly to employees without any involvement of the employer, including any distribution of literature or extra payments by the employer. [2]

Litigation

The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic religious order, runs over 25 homes for low-income elderly in the United States [3] and therefore is not automatically exempt from the contraceptive mandate. It objected to filing Form 700 because it believed that doing would make the order complicit in providing contraception, a sin under Roman Catholic doctrine. On December 31, 2013, the day before the filing requirement was to come into effect, Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor granted a temporary injunction to the Little Sisters of the Poor, allowing them to simply inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services of their objections, pending resolution of the case. [4] [5] [6] Other religious institutions filed similar objections.

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), closely held for-profit corporations are exempt from the contraceptive mandate, if they object on religious grounds, because the accommodation offered to objecting non-profits would be a less restrictive way to achieve the ACA's interest. [7]

On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court granted a temporary exemption to the approach it suggested as a less restrictive alternative in Hobby Lobby, where the plaintiffs would send an EBSA Form 700 to its insurance issuer, which would pay for the contraception. In an unsigned emergency injunction for Wheaton College in Illinois, the court said that instead of notifying its insurance issuer, Wheaton can notify the government. Once notified, the government should notify the issuer. Wheaton believed that by transferring the obligation to cover contraceptives to its insurance issuer, it was triggering that obligation. The emergency injunction does not constitute a ruling on the merits of Wheaton's religious objection. The court said "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." [8] In a 15-page dissent joined by the other two women on the court, Justice Sotomayor criticized the majority's reasoning and distinguished it from the situation with the Little Sisters of the Poor. [9]

Revised form

A revised version of EBSA Form 700, was issued effective August 2014, that says "[a]s an alternative to using this form, an eligible organization may provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the eligible organization has a religious objection to providing coverage for all or a subset of contraceptive services...". The form includes a link to a suggested model notification letter. The model notification letter can be found at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/modelnoticetosecretaryofhhs.pdf.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hobby Lobby</span> American arts-and-crafts store chain based in Oklahoma

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., formerly Hobby Lobby Creative Centers, is an American retail company. It owns a chain of arts and crafts stores with a volume of over $5 billion in 2018. The chain has 969 stores in 47 US states. Hobby Lobby is owned by Christians and incorporates American conservative values and Christian media.

Liberty Counsel is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt religious liberty organization that engages in litigation related to evangelical Christian values. Liberty Counsel was founded in 1989 by its chairman Mathew Staver and its president Anita L. Staver, who are attorneys and married to each other. The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Liberty Counsel as an anti-LGBT hate group, a designation the group has disputed. The group is a Christian ministry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Little Sisters of the Poor</span> Catholic religious institute for women

The Little Sisters of the Poor is a Catholic religious institute for women. It was founded by Jeanne Jugan. Having felt the need to care for the many impoverished elderly who lined the streets of French towns and cities, Jugan established the congregation to care for the elderly in 1839.

Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States and other countries which permit pharmacists, physicians, and/or other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. It can also involve parents withholding consenting for particular treatments for their children.

Becket Law, formerly the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, is a non-profit public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C., that describes its mission as "defending the freedom of religion of people of all faiths". Becket promotes accommodationism and is active in the judicial system, the media, and in education.

Conestoga Wood Specialties is a manufacturer of wood doors and components for kitchen, bath and furniture, based in East Earl, Pennsylvania. They have five factories, located in Washington, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, employing about 1,200 people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scott Matheson Jr.</span> American judge

Scott Milne Matheson Jr. is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He has served on that court since 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

This is a timeline of reproductive rights legislation, a chronological list of laws and legal decisions affecting human reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are a sub-set of human rights pertaining to issues of reproduction and reproductive health. These rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to birth control, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence. Reproductive rights may also include the right to receive education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization, abortion, and contraception, and protection from practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM).

Eden Foods, Inc., is an organic food company based in Clinton, Michigan. It is best known for its Edensoy line of organic soy milk, and its line of organic Japanese foods and condiments. The company claims to be the oldest independent organic food producer in the United States, and the largest supplier of organic dry grocery items.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birth control movement in the United States</span> Social reform campaign beginning in 1914

The birth control movement in the United States was a social reform campaign beginning in 1914 that aimed to increase the availability of contraception in the U.S. through education and legalization. The movement began in 1914 when a group of political radicals in New York City, led by Emma Goldman, Mary Dennett, and Margaret Sanger, became concerned about the hardships that childbirth and self-induced abortions brought to low-income women. Since contraception was considered to be obscene at the time, the activists targeted the Comstock laws, which prohibited distribution of any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail. Hoping to provoke a favorable legal decision, Sanger deliberately broke the law by distributing The Woman Rebel, a newsletter containing a discussion of contraception. In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, but the clinic was immediately shut down by police, and Sanger was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birth control in the United States</span> History of birth control in the United States

Birth control in the United States is available in many forms. Some of the forms available at drugstores and some retail stores are male condoms, female condoms, sponges, spermicides, and over-the-counter emergency contraception. Forms available at pharmacies with a doctor's prescription or at doctor's offices are oral contraceptive pills, patches, vaginal rings, diaphragms, shots/injections, cervical caps, implantable rods, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Sterilization procedures, including tubal ligations and vasectomies, are also performed.

A contraceptive mandate is a government regulation or law that requires health insurers, or employers that provide their employees with health insurance, to cover some contraceptive costs in their health insurance plans.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Paul Joseph Wieland is an American businessman and politician from the state of Missouri. A member of the Republican Party, Wieland represents the 22nd District in the Missouri State Senate.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court decided on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had struck down similar laws. Other states with similar laws may also be impacted.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving ongoing conflicts between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) over the ACA's contraceptive mandate. The ACA exempts nonprofit religious organizations from complying with the mandate, to which for-profit religious organizations objected.

References

  1. ↑ Pear, Robert (12 July 2014). "A Two-Page Form Spawns a Contraceptive Showdown" – via NYTimes.com.
  2. ↑ "High court worsens pain of Obamacare birth-control compromise". Archived from the original on July 3, 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
  3. ↑ Little Sister Directory of Homes accessed March 27, 2016
  4. ↑ Bazelon, Emily (Jan 24, 2014). "Did Little Sisters of the Poor Win or Lose at the Supreme Court?". Slate. Retrieved Jul 6, 2014.
  5. ↑ "Supreme Court order" (PDF). supremecourt.gov.
  6. ↑ "order from Sotomayor" (PDF). becketfund.org.
  7. ↑ "Supreme Court of the United States : Syllabus : BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  8. ↑ Order in Pending Case, Wheaton College v. Bruwell, On Application for Injunction, July 3, 2014
  9. ↑ Liptak, Adam (Jul 3, 2014). "Birth Control Order Deepens Divide Among Justices". The New York Times. Retrieved Jul 3, 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.