Catholic employers can't be forced to provide gender-affirming care, federal judge in ND rules
A North Dakota federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cannot force a group of Catholic employers to administer or pay for gender-affirming medical care.
The case concerns two rules published by the federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services rule bars businesses that provide federally funded health programs from withholding medical care to someone just because they are transgender. Doing so would violate an anti-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the rule states.
The lawsuit also challenged a similar rule published by the EEOC implementing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws workplace discrimination for employers with more than 15 employees. The rule holds that such employers cannot refuse to cover medical services to a transgender staff member that they would otherwise cover for other employees.
Federal judge in North Dakota rules in favor of Catholic employers on abortion protections
The Catholic Benefits Association — which represents Catholic employers — filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in North Dakota alleging the rules will force its members to violate their religious beliefs. The association said the rules could require Catholic hospitals to perform gender-affirming surgeries or a Catholic ministry to cover an employee's hormone replacement therapy, for example. The Catholic church teaches that providing gender-affirming care to transgender people is immoral, the association states in its complaint.
The Department of Health and Human Services and EEOC defended the rules as necessary to protect Americans from gender-based discrimination, and further argued that the policies won't harm religious exercise because employers can ask for religious exemptions from the rules on a case-by-case basis. U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte found these options insufficient because they do not guarantee exemptions to religious organizations, leaving them 'unable to predict their legal exposure.'
Welte in an order last week sided largely with the Catholic Benefits Association. Welte found that the rules violate broad protections for religious exercise established in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That act states that the government can only limit religious exercise in service of a 'compelling government interest,' and must make every effort to be as minimally restrictive as possible.
Welte said that the Department of Health and Human Services and EEOC rules don't meet these standards. The policies force Catholic organizations to decide between going against their beliefs and being subject to discrimination investigations and lawsuits, he wrote in the order.
He ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot interpret the Affordable Care Act in a way that requires the Catholic Benefits Association to administer or provide insurance coverage for gender-affirming procedures. He similarly found that the EEOC cannot interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the association to provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures.
The lawsuit also challenged other protections in the rules related to abortion and fertility treatments, though Welte dismissed those claims.
The Catholic Benefits Association filed the lawsuit as a successor to a previous case it joined with other Catholic groups against the Department of Health and Human Services and the EEOC. Welte also sided with the plaintiffs in that case, though an appellate court in 2022 found the Catholic Benefits Association didn't have standing to be part of the suit.
In another case involving the Catholic Benefits Association, North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor in April ruled that the association is exempt from provisions in two separate EEOC policies — one meant to shield workers from LGBTQ-based workplace harassment, and another that sought to protect workers' access to abortion and fertility treatments.
Other federal judges have since issued rulings vacating parts of both rules nationwide. A federal judge in Texas in May vacated portions of the workplace harassment rule that pertain to sexual harassment and gender identity. Later that month, a federal judge in Louisiana struck down the abortion access protections.
The decisions come as President Donald Trump's administration is rolling back services and legal protections, including by restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors and implementing a blanket ban on transgender people serving in the military. Trump signed an executive order in January establishing a two-gender policy for the federal government.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Even in states that fought the ACA, Trump's new law poses health consequences
Miami — GOP lawmakers in the 10 states that refused the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion for over a decade have argued their conservative approach to growing government programs would pay off in the long run. Instead, the Republican-passed budget law that includes many of President Trump's priorities will pose at least as big a burden on patients and hospitals in the expansion holdout states as in the 40 states that have extended Medicaid coverage to more low-income adults, hospital executives and other officials warn. For instance, Georgia, with a population of just over 11 million, will see as many people lose insurance coverage sold through ACA marketplaces as will California, with more than triple the population, according to estimates by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. The new law imposes additional paperwork requirements on Obamacare enrollees, slashes the time they have each year to sign up, and cuts funding for navigators who help them shop for plans. Those changes, all of which will erode enrollment, are expected to have far more impact in states like Florida and Texas than in California because a higher proportion of residents in non-expansion states are enrolled in ACA plans. The budget law, which Republicans called the "One Big Beautiful Bill," will cause sweeping changes to health care across the country as it trims federal spending on Medicaid by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. The program covers more than 71 million people with low incomes and disabilities. Ten million people will lose coverage over the next decade due to the law, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Many of its provisions are focused on the 40 states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, which added millions more low-income adults to the rolls. But the consequences are not confined to those states. A proposal from conservatives to cut more generous federal payments for people added to Medicaid by the ACA expansion didn't make it into the law. "Politicians in non-expansion states should be furious about that," said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. The number of people losing coverage could accelerate in non-expansion states if enhanced federal subsidies for Obamacare plans expire at the end of the year, driving up premiums as early as January and adding to the rolls of uninsured. KFF estimates as many as 2.2 million people could become uninsured just in Florida, a state where lawmakers refused to expand Medicaid and, partly as a result, now leads the nation in ACA enrollment. For people like Francoise Cham of Miami, who has Obamacare coverage, the Republican policy changes could be life-altering. Before she had insurance, the 62-year-old single mom said she would donate blood just to get her cholesterol checked. Once a year, she'd splurge for a wellness exam at Planned Parenthood. She expects to make about $28,000 this year and currently pays about $100 a month for an ACA plan to cover herself and her daughter, and even that strains her budget. Cham choked up describing the "safety net" that health insurance has afforded her — and at the prospect of being unable to afford coverage if premiums spike at the end of the year. "Obamacare has been my lifesaver," she said. If the enhanced ACA subsidies aren't extended, "everyone will be hit hard," said Cindy Mann, a health policy expert with Manatt Health, a consulting and legal firm, and a former deputy administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "But a state that hasn't expanded Medicaid will have marketplace people enrolling at lower income levels," she said. "So, a greater share of residents are reliant on the marketplace." Though GOP lawmakers may try to cut Medicaid even more this year, for now the states that expanded Medicaid largely appear to have made a smart decision, while states that haven't are facing similar financial pressures without any upside, said health policy experts and hospital industry observers. KFF Health News reached out to the governors of the 10 states that have not fully expanded Medicaid to see if the budget legislation made them regret that decision or made them more open to expansion. Spokespeople for Republican Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina and Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia did not indicate whether their states are considering Medicaid expansion. Brandon Charochak, a spokesperson for McMaster's office, said South Carolina's Medicaid program focuses on "low-income children and families and disabled individuals," adding, "The state's Medicaid program does not anticipate a large impact on the agency's Medicaid population." Enrollment in ACA marketplace plans nationwide has more than doubled since 2020 to 24.3 million. If enhanced subsidies expire, premiums for Obamacare coverage would rise by more than 75% on average, according to an analysis by KFF. Some insurers are already signaling they plan to charge more. The CBO estimates that allowing enhanced subsidies to expire will increase the number of people without health insurance by 4.2 million by 2034, compared with a permanent extension. That would come on top of the coverage losses caused by Mr. Trump's budget law. "That is problematic and scary for us," said Eric Boley, president of the Wyoming Hospital Association. He said his state, which did not expand Medicaid, has a relatively small population and hasn't been the most attractive for insurance providers — few companies currently offer plans on the ACA exchange — and he worried any increase in the uninsured rate would "collapse the insurance market." As the uninsured rate rises in non-expansion states and the budget law's Medicaid cuts loom, lawmakers say state funds will not backfill the loss of federal dollars, including in states that have refused to expand Medicaid. Those states got slightly favorable treatment under the law, but it's not enough, said Grace Hoge, press secretary for Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat who favors Medicaid expansion but who has been rebuffed by GOP state legislators. "Kansans' ability to access affordable healthcare will be harmed," Hoge said in an email. "Kansas, nor our rural hospitals, will not be able to make up for these cuts." For hospital leaders in other states that have refused full Medicaid expansion, the budget law poses another test by limiting financing arrangements states leveraged to make higher Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals. Beginning in 2028, the law will reduce those payments by 10 percentage points each year until they are closer to what Medicare pays. Richard Roberson, president of the Mississippi Hospital Association, said the state's use of what's called directed payments in 2023 helped raise its Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and other health institutions from $500 million a year to $1.5 billion a year. He said higher rates helped Mississippi's rural hospitals stay open. "That payment program has just been a lifeline," Roberson said. The budget law includes a $50 billion fund intended to insulate rural hospitals and clinics from its changes to Medicaid and the ACA. But a KFF analysis found it would offset only about one-third of the cuts to Medicaid in rural areas. Mr. Trump encouraged Florida, Tennessee, and Texas to continue refusing Medicaid expansion in his first term, when his administration gave them an unusual 10-year extension for financing programs known as uncompensated care pools, which generate billions of dollars to pay hospitals for treating the uninsured, said Allison Orris, director of Medicaid policy for the left-leaning think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Those were very clearly a decision from the first Trump administration to say, 'You get a lot of money for an uncompensated care pool instead of expanding Medicaid,'" she said. Those funds are not affected by Mr. Trump's new tax-and-spending law. But they do not help patients the way insurance coverage would, Orris said. "This is paying hospitals, but it's not giving people health care," she said. "It's not giving people prevention." States such as Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi have not only turned down the additional federal funding that Medicaid expansion brings, but most of the remaining non-expansion states spend less than the national average per Medicaid enrollee, provide fewer or less generous benefits, and cover fewer categories of low-income Americans. Mary Mayhew, president of the Florida Hospital Association, said the state's Medicaid program does not adequately cover children, older people, and people with disabilities because reimbursement rates are too low. "Children don't have timely access to dentists," she said. "Expectant moms don't have access nearby to an OB-GYN. We've had labor and delivery units close in Florida." She said the law will cost states more in the long run. "The health care outcomes for the individuals we serve will deteriorate. That's going to lead to higher cost, more spending, more dependency on the emergency department." KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Newsweek
18 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Walks Back on Key Campaign Pledge: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump appears to have walked back on a key campaign pledge he made last year regarding in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to a Sunday report from The Washington Post. The newspaper reported that the Trump administration has moved away from plans to improve access to the reproductive healthcare policy due to legal constraints. Newsweek could not verify the report and has contacted the White House outside of normal business hours to comment on this story. Why It Matters IVF is a key reproductive treatment for women finding it difficult to become pregnant. The White House previously said that it can cost up to $25,000 per cycle and that 1 in 7 couples struggle to conceive. Trump made a pledge on the campaign trail to cover IVF for all women and couples seeking it, telling NBC News last August: "Under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment. Or we're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay." Trump also called himself the "fertilization president" at a Women's History Month event in March, promising "tremendous goodies" for women. What To Know Upon returning to the White House for a second term earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order on February 18 expanding access to IVF and making it more affordable for patients. The order, which addressed the importance of starting families, also directed agencies to safeguard access to IVF and directed his domestic policy council to submit policy recommendations about IVF by May 19. The executive order came amid growing legal concerns over reproductive rights in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. That ruling allowed some states to enact abortion bans that, in some cases, threaten access to IVF by defining life as beginning at conception. It also came amid concerns about falling birth rates in the U.S. The fertility rate is now projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest forecast released this year. That is below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. As of August, there have been no further updates from the White House regarding IVF policies. The Post, citing two people with knowledge of internal discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations, reported that White House officials said they were still interested in expanding IVF but that there were legal constraints with making it an essential health benefit without congressional approval. Expanding access to IVF would come at odds with Trump and other conservative's opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, the insurance plan that allows access to health care. The Post reported that White House officials are backing away from proposals discussed internally to mandate IVF coverage for the roughly 50 million people on the Obamacare exchanges. The first Trump administration tried to repeal the ACA. Using it to cover IVF by making it an "essential health benefit" would require insurers in the marketplace to cover it and would lead insurance companies to raise premium costs, which could hurt the GOP in next year's midterms, the newspaper reported. Kaylen Silverberg, an outside adviser to the administration, told the Post that the White House had approached him about fertility methods that use holistic health instead of IVF. Silverberg added that officials had asked him about restorative reproductive medicine, a method of treating infertility by improving overall health via lifestyle changes. Implementing that would fall "very short" of Trump's initial promises, Silverberg told the newspaper. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before boarding Air Force One at Lehigh Valley International Airport, on August 3 in Allentown, Pennsylvania. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before boarding Air Force One at Lehigh Valley International Airport, on August 3 in Allentown, Pennsylvania. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson What People Are Saying Mark Shanahan, who teaches American politics at the University of Surrey in the United Kingdom, told Newsweek: "On the campaign trail, Trump said what he needed to say in order to win the 2024 presidential election. Being in office is very different. While he has been able to largely fulfil his campaign promises on foreign policy and issues such as immigration and the size of government through Executive Order, mandating IVF availability requires Congressional support, and with tight majorities in both chambers he's clearly decided it's a hill not worth dying on." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman told the Post: "President Trump pledged to expand access to fertility treatments for Americans who are struggling to start families. The Administration is committed like none before it to using its authorities to deliver on this pledge." What Happens Next? Whether the White House unveils policies regarding IVF remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the administration has put forth other policies regarding reproduction. In the One Big Beautiful Bill, health care providers who carry out abortions and receive more than $800,000 in federal reimbursements are banned from getting Medicaid funding for a year.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Experts, school leaders excited about Presidential Fitness Test but urge reforms
Health experts and school leaders are thrilled with President Trump's revival of the Presidential Fitness Test, but they are hoping for substantial revisions to program, which was first deployed nearly 60 years ago. Advocates say the test, which hasn't been used since 2012, will need a makeover to shift its focus away from competition and more toward sustaining healthy lifestyles for youth. The move comes amid Trump's increased interest in the sports world during his second term and is propelled by the 'Make America Healthy Again' movement led by the Department of Health and Human Services. Trump appointed professional athletes to the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, which will be guiding and working on standards for the revived test. Experts are urging the council to ensure the goals of the test are updated as well. Kayce Solari Williams, past president of the American School Health Association and a professor at Purdue University, hopes the council will go from the old standard to really considering 'overall health and performance' and linking expectations to certain age groups. Williams stressed she has to see 'what the format' and 'requirements' will be as we 'know more about taking better care of the body and doing some prevention, along with strengthening and increasing endurance and flexibility' than we did in the past. The prior test had five core activities: a 1-mile run; pullups or pushups; situps; a shuttle run; and the sit-and-reach. It was originally created to compare with Europeans students in physical strength, and the top 15 percent of U.S. students who completed the test would get a presidential award. The physical exam was ended during the Obama administration over concerns it focused more on competition than healthy lifestyles. 'The good news is that we are going to be looking, I hope, at curriculum to enhance how much activity is happening at schools. As for the testing itself, I mean, it's just a number … I'm hoping that a team or expert is really going to look at: How do we help improve baseline data?' said Laura Richardson, a kinesiology professor at the University of Michigan. 'My hope is that the Presidential Fitness testing is going to evolve, maybe rewards to them, where it's going to incentivize students individually and not based on groups,' Richardson added. The test was previously taken by middle and high schoolers across the country, but only 10 to 17-year-olds were eligible for the presidential award. School leaders are ecstatic over the change, pointing to concerns about sedentary lifestyles among their students. Tori Snitker, principal of Rolla Junior High School in Missouri, said her district has worked to create more room for physical activity for all students, including those with disabilities. 'I am seeing students have a more sedentary lifestyle due to technology,' Snitker said. 'We have to focus on the physical health of our students.' Other principals are so concerned about this phenomenon they suggested school fitness standards tied to a national goal or even military service. 'I'm hoping for some standards that are maybe even aligned with what military service is required because I think as a country, we need to be able to be prepared, and our young people need to be able to have a standard of fitness,' said Pierre Orbe, principal of DeWitt Clinton High School in New York, adding there is a difference between students who are medically unable to do certain tasks versus those who are 'not fulfilling their current potential.' Orbe believes some national standard is needed because physical education teachers feel 'hamstrung' by an 'enabling society' where there are more notes 'to say that my child can't do things' than can. Concerns about reliance on technology among students have mounted as many states and districts have started to ban cell phones in schools. Steven Kelder, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas, Houston, and co-director of Coordinated Approach to Child Health, stressed that just one test will not help the situation, unlike a 'combination of programs' that focus on physical fitness for a variety of individuals, not just those good at particular sports. According to 2024 data from the Centers for Control and Disease Prevention (CDC), one in five U.S. children are affected by obesity. 'There is an obesity crisis in America. It's not getting a whole lot better, and now, over time last 25 years, it's resulting in a diabetes crisis amongst kids. And I think that partly was the result of video games and what I call indoor electronic entertainment,' Kelder said. Schools and states also worry about students' mental health with the increased use of technology, though the Trump administration recently cut $1 billion to mental health programs for schools due to concerns the money was going to diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Leaders also stress the need for federal resources, especially if the presidential council creates awards and inventive structures for students in the revived test. 'We would love to see some resources to come our way to help with the motivation, with the rewards,' said Dennis Willingham, superintendent at the Walker County Board of Education in Alabama. 'We do have creative people who work with our children.' 'We're thankful for that, and we know that they provide rewards and motivation on their own, but to have resources to come from the national level and to make this a big deal for everyone nationwide, it makes it even bigger and even more appealing to our children,' he added.
