The supreme Court of the United States validates a reform Trump that limit the reimbursement of contraception

La Cour suprême des États-Unis valide une réforme de Trump qui limite le remboursement de la contraception

The supreme Court of the United States approved on Wednesday a reform of the government of Donald Trump, which limits the reimbursement of the costs of contraception for employees in the name of defending the religious values of their employers.

The highest court has also ruled, in a separate folder, that the teachers of the denominational schools were not protected by the devices of anti-discrimination.

These two decisions represent small compensations for the republican president and support for the conservatives after a series of camouflets in folders that are at the heart of their concerns: the rights of sexual minorities, youth, undocumented immigrants and the right to an abortion.

“The supreme Court has defended religious freedoms “, was immediately congratulated on Twitter the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, while the organizations of family planning, Planned Parenthood, or the defence of civil rights ACLU fault of their own, making “disgusting” or ” shameful “.

The first focuses on one of the flagship measures of the law on health insurance of the ex-democratic president Barack Obama, ” the Obamacare “, which required employers to cover in their mutual the means of contraception of their employees.

The provision has, according to its advocates, benefited more than 56 million women who were previously not, or poorly, reimbursed for their pills or iuds. But it has been the subject of a guerrilla legal upon its adoption.

It had been amended so that employers with objections to religious do not have to pay, but simply to “notify” the authorities about their refusal, to charge to the government or the mutuals take their relay.

But it was still too much for some of them who did not want to be “accomplices” of acts that they disapprove of. Once elected, Donald Trump gave them reason, by granting a broad exemption without providing for any relays. The government had recognized that his measure would deprive between 70 000 and 126 000 women of refund.

The courts had prevented the implementation of this reform, which was finally validated by the high Court. “We believe that the administration had the authority to offer such exemptions “, one can read in his decision by a large majority (seven judges out of nine).

In the second folder, it relied on the constitutional principle of separation of Church and State to deny the teachers of the denominational schools the protection of anti-discrimination laws. For it, they complete missions “pastoral” in the same way as parish priests or pastors, and churches should be able to choose freely.

Share Button