Latest news with #CatholicBenefitsAssociation
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Catholic employers can't be forced to provide gender-affirming care, federal judge in ND rules
The Quentin Burdick federal courthouse in Fargo, North Dakota. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) 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
Epoch Times
06-06-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Judge Rules Federal Rule on Gender Discrimination Violates Catholic Beliefs
A rule from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violates the beliefs of members of a Catholic association, a federal judge ruled on June 5. The HHS rule requiring members of the Catholic Benefits Association to perform transgender procedures 'violates their sincerely held religious beliefs without satisfying strict scrutiny,' U.S. District Judge Peter Welte
06-06-2025
- Health
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. -- Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte. ___ Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte. ___ Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
