A federal judge on Friday ruled [opinion, PDF] in favor of a Missouri lawmaker “who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that health insurance issuers provide minimum essential coverage to women- including coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures provided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The lawsuit began when Catholic Senator Paul Wieland and his wife filed suit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the government agency that enforces the ACA, alleging that participating in a healthcare plan that “includes coverage for contraceptives violates their sincerely-held religious beliefs.” The federal judge concluded that the ACA’s requirement that includes contraceptive methods ‘substantially burdens’ the Wieland’s exercise of religion against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because they either have to drop their insurance and pay thousands of dollars per year or leave their children without health insurance. The decision may be appealed by the government.

The debate over abortion law and women’s right of access to contraceptives has gathered a lot of international attention in recent years. Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari [JURIST report] in a case challenging a Washington regulation requiring pharmacies to sell birth control despite potential religious objections of employees. Also last month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed [JURIST report] a lawsuit against the HHS for allowing religious agencies taking in refugees to refuse female immigrant minors access to reproductive health services, including abortions and birth control. In May, the Supreme Court remanded [JURIST report] a group of cases challenging the birth control mandate in the ACA to the lower courts for further proceeding- citing the RFRA. In April, Lisa C. Ikemoto of the University of California-Davis School of Law discussed [JURIST Commentary report] with JURIST the latest ACA challenge to appear in front of the US Supreme Court.