Summary of The Roberts Court Curtails Birth Control Access. Again.
The Roberts Court Curtails Birth Control Access. Again., is an opinion piece by the editorial board of the New York Times on July 8th, 2020 that addressed a Supreme court ruling that scrapped abortion laws from the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The US supreme court under the Chief justice John Roberts struck down the birth control clause of the Affordable Care act, a few days after dismissing a strict anti-abortion law in Louisiana. Consequently, “between 70,500 and 126,400 women” would immediately lose access to free contraceptive services. The Little sisters of the poor, an order of the Catholic church had taken the state of Pennsylvania to court challenging the abortion bill claiming it violated their religious liberty spelled out in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Their litigation was however shocking since their participation in the process was optional. They are also opposed to the directive by the ACA’s directive that large employers should include contraceptive costs in their insurance plans for employees.
The issue has undergone several lawsuits with the administration of President Donald Trump expanding the exemptions for companies to exclude those that are not publicly traded or have religious affiliations. This is despite the thousands of women who rely on expensive birth control to manage several medical conditions besides terminating a pregnancy. The Trump administration has been highly critical of the ACA and birth control since ascending to the office and has recently scrapped the legendary family planning program that controls births. The efforts of the administration to alter the laws on reproductive health has negatively affected thousands of poor women and women of color.
Article Response
This article is an eye-opener into the bigotry creeping into the judicial system through the executive arm of the government. One of my observations in the article is the pro-feminist approach that the authors took in the piece. The article starts by noting the monumental negative changes that the Supreme court has been conducting on reproductive health, it “reminded Americans once again that it is no friend to reproductive rights” (Board). Throughout the paper, the writers develop an opinion against the religious institutions whose beliefs could affect the lives of innocent American women. According to Sullivan (127), freedom of religion should be exercised in a manner that does not affect the lives of others. Consequently, the article concludes by citing the irony in the court granting such a request that violates the rights of innocent Americans but resigns by stating the soft spot that the Supreme court has had for religious bodies since.
The political instigation of legal suits should be reviewed by courts when making decisions that affect the lives of people. According to the article, the lawsuit was coming on the back of several suits aimed at the ACA by the Trump administration. The eventual effect of certain rulings should be reviewed based on the motives of the political class backing such a suit. Ideally, the Trump administration would rejoice in dismantling the ACA at the expense of thousands of Americans who depended on it to save their lives. Such rulings impact heavily on the trust in the political system overseeing important policy issues.
The independence and impartiality of the Judicial system are also questioned in this article. In my opinion, the authors draw a close relationship between the office of the president and the judiciary, insinuating that the latter acts at the behest of the former. This, again, is questionable given the trust that most citizens have invested in the judicial system. Malleson (28) laments the invasion of judicial space by the expansion of activism and political interest. Control of the judiciary by political forces could lead to a system of impudent impunity. The judiciary would thus take precedence and rulings that excite their political controllers as innocent citizens suffer. Notably, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, “between 70,500 and 126,400 women would immediately lose access to no-cost contraceptive services,” (Board), takes into account the interests of innocent Americans and not religious formations and government only.
In my opinion, decisions such as birth control should be left in the hands of medical experts and not the opinions of bigoted politicians and religious bodies. This way, deserving people would get their rights. Secondly, the rulings by the supreme court need to be appealed immediately to save the lives of innocent American women who could as much as lose their lives if they don’t get access to affordable healthcare.
Works cited
Board, The Editorial. “The Roberts Court Curtails Birth Control Access. Again.” N.p., 08 July 2020. Web. 18 July 2020.
Malleson, Kate. The new judiciary: The effects of expansion and activism. Routledge, 2016.
Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers. The Impossibility of Religious Freedom: New Edition. Princeton University Press, 2018.