Reproductive Rights Groups Sue Notre Dame Over Contraceptives Policy

It’s the latest in a multi-year legal battle between the school and women’s groups.

Camilla Zenz/ZUMA Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

University of Notre Dame students filed a federal lawsuit against their school and the Trump administration on Tuesday in response to the university’s decision earlier this year to end insurance coverage of some contraceptives for its students and employees. The suit is the latest in a multi-year back-and-forth between Notre Dame, the federal government, and reproductive-rights advocates. 

The lawsuit asks the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana to prevent Notre Dame from dropping coverage of some forms of birth control, including the morning-after pill and certain intrauterine devices, and requiring out-of-pocket payment for others. It argues that the university’s policy violates the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that health plans cover the entire cost of a range of preventive health services, including all Food and Drug Administration-approved forms of contraception, and that the school’s policy violates the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights. 

Several women’s rights and freedom-from-religion advocacy groups brought the lawsuit on behalf of Irish 4 Reproductive Health, a student organization, and others insured under Notre Dame’s health plans. In addition to Notre Dame, the suit names as defendants the departments of Labor, the Treasury, and Health and Human Services, as well as the heads of those departments.

Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, objects on religious grounds to providing certain forms of contraceptives. In 2012, the university sued the Obama administration over the ACA’s birth control mandate. That suit was deemed premature and thrown out, then refiled the next year, initiating years of legal reckoning between Notre Dame and the Obama government. The university seems to see more eye-to-eye with the new administration, however.

Notre Dame has pointed to the Trump administration’s October 2017 announcement of rules making it easier for organizations to deny birth control coverage on religious or moral grounds. Just weeks after the announcement, the school said it would be revoking insurance coverage of contraceptives for all students and employees. It reversed that decision in November, announcing that it would provide coverage through a third party. Then in a February letter, Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins announced the school would cover only some contraceptives. The policy is expected to take effect later this year. 

Meanwhile, the legal standing of Trump’s rule rolling back the contraceptive coverage mandate has come under scrutiny: Two federal courts have issued injunctions blocking the rule from taking effect. Notre Dame has cited a 2017 private settlement agreement it reached with the Trump administration to justify moving forward with its new policy despite the fact that the Trump rule is on hold.

In his February 7, 2018 letter to faculty and staff, Rev. Jenkins characterized the Obamacare birth control mandate as a departure “from a long tradition in federal law by distinguishing between religious institutions that were exempt, such as parishes, and those that were not, such as universities and hospitals,” adding that it “created a precedent for further constraints on the latterā€™s religious freedom.”

The three groups that filed on behalf of the students say the settlement agreement is invalid. In a press release, the National Womenā€™s Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Center for Reproductive Rights wrote:

Notre Dame claims the illegal settlement agreement with the Administration gives it the right to drop coverage, notwithstanding the fact that the contract violates the rights of third parties who were not included in the negotiation process, or even informed of the agreement, at the time.

Emily Nestler, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, says the lawsuit has implications beyond Notre Dame.

ā€œThis case has several different things that are relevant” more broadly, Nestler told Mother Jones. “One is, of course, the denial of reproductive freedom to choose contraception for plaintiffs at Notre Dame and across the country.” Nestler also said that the school’s policy violates the constitution.

“We have Establishment Clause claims because it forces the religious views of some on others, contrary to their belief systems,” she said. “And we also have due-process claims that it violates peopleā€™s rights to liberty and to control their own bodies and make decisions that are best for their own bodies and their own families.ā€

In a terse statement about the lawsuit, Notre Dame spokesman Paul Browne wrote simply, “The assertions on the face of it are maliciously and preposterously false.”

A 2011 Guttmacher Institute report found that 98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women reported having used a method of birth control other than natural family planning.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate