During his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, President Joe Bidens nominee for health and human services secretary, Xavier Becerrathe attorney general of California since 2017claimed that he never sued any nuns in response to a question about litigation against the Little Sisters of the Poor. Becerra further claimed that the lawsuit in question was filed against the federal government because they have been trying to do things that are contrary to the law in California.
At the hearing, Sen. John Thune posed the following question to Becerra:
It does seem like, as attorney general, you spent an inordinate amount of time and effort suing pro-life organizations, like Little Sisters of the Poor, or trying to ease restrictions or expand abortion. Youre going to have a big job as secretary of Health and Human Services, if confirmed. So how do you assure us, thatbecause I think the majority of American people would not want their secretary of health and human services focused or fixated on expanding abortion when weve got all these public health issues to deal with. So how do you assure us that thats not going to be something that continues over from your time as attorney general?
In response, Becerra stated:
Senator, thank you very much for giving me a chance to answer the question. And here, I think I tried to say to Sen. Grassley, I understand that Americans have different, deeply held beliefs on this particular issue and I absolutely respect that. By the way, I have never sued any nuns. I have taken on the federal government, but Ive never sued any affiliation of nuns, and my actions have always been directed at the federal agencies because they have been trying to do things that are contrary to the law in California.
After years of litigation during the Obama administration, in October 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Treasury under the Trump administration issued an exemption from contraceptive coverage for religious employers providing health insurance to employees.
After the Trump administration issued this new exemption, the attorneys general of five states, including California, sued, alleging that the exemption violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Establishment Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The suit was filed on November 1, 2017, and on November 21, the Little Sisters of the Poor filed a motion to join the case as an intervenor. Intervenors are parties who are not included in the original suit but will be directly affected by the outcome of the case. In this case, the Little Sisters of the Poor were allowed to join the side of the government because Becerra asked the court to enjoin the government from exempting employers like theirs and would have forced the Little Sisters, as they put it, to choose between violating their faith and paying crippling fines. Following the Little Sisters joining as intervenors, the case name became California v. Little Sisters of the Poor. Regardless of their status as a party to the lawsuit, if Becerra had won his case, the government would have been restrained from acting but employers like the Little Sisters are the ones who would have been on the hook for paying the fines.
When asked for comment, the California attorney generals office shared a statement with The Dispatch Fact Check, saying: When the Trump Administration issued two rules that allowed employers and insurers to deny women and families coverage, it created a gap in coverage for Californians. By HHSs own assessment, up to 130,000 women would lose coverage as a result. In California v. Azar [the original case name of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor], the Attorney General sued the Trump Administration over these rules to defend the Affordable Care Acts contraceptive coverage mandate and Californians' coverage. The statement further claimed that The Trump Birth Control Rules did not affect the Little Sisters of the Poor, who (1) were exempt from the rules because they are a self-insured church plan (as they've confirmed in court); and (2) since 2018, the Little Sisters had a permanent injunction from the birth control accommodation.
Becerras former office is correct on their first point but it doesnt actually provide any support for Becerras claim that he was suing the federal government because they have been trying to do things that are contrary to the law in California. The lawsuit states explicitly that Becerra and the other attorneys general believed the regulations violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. No mention of California law made is made beyond Californias Contraceptive Equity Act, which the complaint openly states only applies to state-regulated health plans and doesn't apply to self-funded health plans, through which 61 percent of covered workers are insured. The complaint doesnt allege that the exemption breaks this law, only that those under self-funded plans [will] not receive the benefit of the act.
As Becerra and the other attorneys general said in their legal briefs, the Trump contraception mandate exemption did require California to absorb the financial and administrative burden of ensuring access to contraceptive coverage. But that doesnt mean that the Trump exemption violated California law or was in conflict with it. Nowhere do they arguein their legal briefs or their statement herethat the Trump exemption would have forced them to violate California law. This was a case about whether California would have to pay more money, not about whether the Trump administration exemption was contrary to the states laws.
The second point made by the attorney generals office is about whether the Little Sisters of the Poor would have been directly affected by the outcome of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor.
First, they argue that the Little Sisters wouldnt have owed any fines regardless because they could submit an opt-on form that would have allowed them not to provide such coverage to their employees. Chief Justice Roberts asked Paul Clement, who represented the Little Sisters, about this point during argument time for Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania. Clement argued that even though the Little Sisters could not be fined for refusing to provide contraceptive coverage if they filled out the opt-out form, by doing so they were still being forced to violate their religious beliefs because the form then triggered the government to provide such coverage directly, thus making the Little Sisters active participants in the provision of contraceptives. Choosing to follow their conscience and not submitting the opt-out forms would result in fines of $100 for every day of noncompliance. In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito agreed, writing that the accommodation demanded that parties like the Little Sisters engage in conduct that was a necessary cause of the ultimate conduct to which they had strong religious objections.
Second, the attorney generals office is correct that a district judge in Colorado issued a permanent injunction. But the injunction applied only to the Little Sisters current health plans, leaving open the possibility the Little Sisters would be forced to comply with contraceptive coverage requirements if they ever changed health care providers or plans. And if Becerra had won his case at the Supreme Court, that permanent injunction would have been in jeopardy as well. In fact, the court addressed this issue in a footnote in the opinion for Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania in which it found that the Little Sisters did have a potential injury.
California v. Little Sisters of the Poor is currently pending at the 9th Circuit to determine whether the Trump administration followed the correct process before issuing the exemption.
While Becerra technically may not have sued any nuns while attorney general, the result he sought in California v. Little Sisters of the Poor would have targeted employers who refused to provide contraceptive coverage to employees on religious grounds and forced them to pay fines if they chose not to do so. As Sen. Ben Sasse pointed out during Becerras confirmation hearing, while Becerra and his fellow attorneys general filed the suit against the federal government, the case had direct bearing on the ability of the Little Sisters of the Poor and other similar groups to function in accordance with their religious beliefs and remain financially solvent.
Becerra is even more flagrantly incorrect to claim that the case was about the federal government acting contrary to California law: Such rationale was never given when he initiated the suit and there is no apparent contradiction between the decision to create a religious exemption and Californias own laws on the matter.
If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at email@example.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Go here to see the original:
Fact Checking Xavier Becerra's Claim That He 'Never Sued Any Nuns' - The Dispatch
- Trump Judge Casts Deciding Vote to Excuse Clear Violation by Police of Black Man's Fifth Amendment Rights: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears - People... - May 11th, 2021
- If the Devil of the WTO IP Waiver Is in the Details, What Are the Details? - JD Supra - May 11th, 2021
- Owens v. Brown: How The Navy's Women Won the Right to Serve at Sea - The Maritime Executive - May 11th, 2021
- Why Is the Justice Department Trying To Punish Derek Chauvin Twice? - Reason - May 11th, 2021
- Voice of the People | | hastingstribune.com - Hastings Tribune - May 11th, 2021
- Frontenacs to pick fifth overall in OHL Priority Selection - The Kingston Whig-Standard - May 11th, 2021
- Trial hits snag for convicted murderer charged in another deadly Youngstown shooting - WKBN.com - April 29th, 2021
- Convention of states blocked in Legislature | netnebraska.org - NET Nebraska - April 29th, 2021
- Derek Chauvin Trial: Updates The Spectator - The Spectator - April 29th, 2021
- Morries Hall and the right not to incriminate yourself (Fifth Amendment) - MSR News Online - April 11th, 2021
- Man who was with George Floyd during his arrest pleads the Fifth amid Chauvin trial - KARE11.com - April 11th, 2021
- Floyd's Friend Invokes 5th Amendment Before Testimony Resumes in Chauvin Trial - Voice Of Alexandria - April 11th, 2021
- Officers take the stand on training and protocol; Floyd's friend fears self-incrimination - WXOW.com - April 11th, 2021
- Today's Headlines and Commentary - Lawfare - Lawfare - April 11th, 2021
- What Is the Second Amendment? | Second Amendment Rights - Reader's Digest - April 11th, 2021
- Free Webinar: Battling Deep Fakes and Misinformation Media's Role and Responsibility - StreetInsider.com - April 11th, 2021
- Virginia Beach police bought the technology to automatically turn on body cameras when a gun is drawn, but it doesn't work - 13newsnow.com WVEC - March 31st, 2021
- Analysis | Hefazat-e Islam, the group behind anti-Modi protests in Bangladesh - The Hindu - March 31st, 2021
- Question of fear or vengeance at core of Lawton murder trial - The Lawton Constitution - March 31st, 2021
- Professor's New Casebook Is First to Look at Law of the Police - UVA Today - March 31st, 2021
- Arbitration. Enforcement of Award. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Personal Jurisdiction. District court refuses to enforce $20 million award... - March 31st, 2021
- SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an... - March 31st, 2021
- City issues order to force Columbus police officers to give evidence in protest probe - The Columbus Dispatch - March 31st, 2021
- Separation of judiciary still elusive in Bangladesh - newagebd.net - March 31st, 2021
- The Fight Over Minimum Wage Has a Long History in the US. Here's What to Know About It - NBC 6 South Florida - March 31st, 2021
- USCIS: Uvarov's request for injunctive relief moot; passport returned and he has departed NMI - Marianas Variety - March 31st, 2021
- Lawyer tries to throw out confession of Killeen woman charged in Vanessa Guillen case - The Killeen Daily Herald - March 31st, 2021
- Bill would protect juveniles' Fifth Amendment rights | Serving Carson City for over 150 years - Nevada Appeal - March 21st, 2021
- SCOTUS to Decide Whether There Is a Fundamental Right to Kick People Off Your Property - Law & Crime - March 21st, 2021
- 5th Amendment - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes - March 7th, 2021
- What is the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment? - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) - March 7th, 2021
- Ghost of March 4 inauguration back to haunt us - Olean Times Herald - March 7th, 2021
- What you need to know as Chauvin trial starts Monday - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press - March 7th, 2021
- Mensah to 'plead the 5th' if forced to testify in new hearing on deadly shooting - WISN Milwaukee - February 27th, 2021
- CPAC heavy hitters to highlight constitutional freedoms, allege 'left hates the Bill of Rights' - Home - WSFX - February 27th, 2021
- The 5 Trump Amendments to the Constitution - The Atlantic - February 25th, 2021
- A refusal to testify shouldnt be interpreted this way - Leominster Champion - February 25th, 2021
- Blythe vote-buying case referred to Georgia Attorney General - The Augusta Chronicle - February 25th, 2021
- Ex-husband of 'RHONY' events planner pleads Fifth in Peeping Tom suit - Page Six - February 25th, 2021
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Kids Climate SuitHeaded to the Supreme Court? - Lexology - February 25th, 2021
- Justices Won't Hear Fight Over USPTO Fees On Axed Patents - Law360 - February 25th, 2021
- Florida woman charged over threats to FBI asking about Capitol siege - Insider - February 25th, 2021
- Disputes over church property and ACCA ambiguity - SCOTUSblog - February 25th, 2021
- Newsom Looks To Shear Barber's Suit Over COVID-19 Orders - Law360 - February 25th, 2021
- Supreme Court asked to declare the all-male military draft unconstitutional | TheHill - The Hill - February 25th, 2021
- ECC takes on 'Black and Blue: Policing Communities of Color' - WBFO - February 25th, 2021
- Letter: CDC vs. landlords. If director has that much power over private citizens, there's a problem. - The Augusta Chronicle - February 25th, 2021
- Trump is acquitted again, Sen. Ron Johnson sends the wrong message by siding with him - UW Badger Herald - February 25th, 2021
- Harvey Weinstein has been behind bars for a year: What's changed? - USA TODAY - February 25th, 2021
- Fifth Amendment to PREP Act Declaration Expands the Ranks of Health Care Providers Authorized to Administer COVID-19 Vaccines - Lexology - February 8th, 2021
- Dems: The Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination doesn't apply to Trump - ChicagoNow - February 8th, 2021
- Americana Corner: The Bill of Rights: The Fifth Amendment - Bryan County News - February 8th, 2021
- Ex-Con in Fraud Case Takes the Fifth - Arkansas Business Online - February 8th, 2021
- HHS Expands Categories of Persons Covered Under the PREP Act Who Can Administer COVID-19 Vaccine - JD Supra - February 8th, 2021
- Book review: 'The Crooked Path to Abolition' - Bowling Green Daily News - February 8th, 2021
- Republicans seek to play offense in vote-a-rama | TheHill - The Hill - February 8th, 2021
- Letter: Claims of constitutional rights are often wrong - The Durango Herald - February 2nd, 2021
- EU Commission publishes fifth amendment to its Temporary Framework for state aid in relation to the COVID-19 crisis - Lexology - February 2nd, 2021
- Can a Comic Book Contain the Drama and Heat of Activism? - The New York Times - February 2nd, 2021
- Chief Nurse at Wolters Kluwer and Critical Care Nurse Practitioner Discusses HHS Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act - Business... - February 2nd, 2021
- Congressional Investigations in the 117th Congress: Choppy Waters Ahead for the Private Sector? - Gibson Dunn - February 2nd, 2021
- The Courts and Healthcare Policy | McGuireWoods Consulting - JDSupra - JD Supra - February 2nd, 2021
- LASD Won't Name Deputies Involved in Killing of Fred Williams III at Otherwise Uninformative Inquest - Streetsblog Los Angeles - February 2nd, 2021
- Xiaomi sues the US government over military blacklisting Just now - Siliconrepublic.com - February 2nd, 2021
- 2020 at the Supreme Court - Lexology - February 2nd, 2021
- FPAA Remembered: In Triangle Football, the Dixie Cup Was the Ultimate Game - Bama Maven - February 2nd, 2021
- Former Rutland cop denied new rape trial after ex-wife, citing perjury concern, declines to provide alibi - Worcester Telegram - February 2nd, 2021
- Are Patents Free for the Taking; or Does the Law Require Just Compensation? - Patently-O - January 29th, 2021
- CIT Dismisses All but One Claim in Section 232 Steel Tariff Dispute - Lexology - January 29th, 2021
- Inquest: Man Killed by Deputies in Willowbrook Was Shot in the Back - NBC Southern California - January 29th, 2021
- 'The Little Things' boasts powerhouse lineup - Post Register - January 29th, 2021
- Meet the People Archives - California Ag Today - January 29th, 2021
- Guest opinion: New Jefferson River flood maps are all wet - Belgrade News - January 29th, 2021
- Betraying Your ChurchAnd Your Party - The Atlantic - January 29th, 2021
- Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 1/18/2021 - MSNBC - January 29th, 2021
- Letter: Halting the Keystone Pipeline is a win for liberty - INFORUM - January 29th, 2021
- Selections from The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump BillMoyers.com - BillMoyers.com - January 29th, 2021
- Mitigating the Risk of Loss of a Delinquent Collateral Asset in the Era of Autonomous Zones - JD Supra - January 19th, 2021
- OPINION | Trump might invoke the 25th Amendment without resigning - Marianas Variety - January 19th, 2021
- Will Joe Biden Issue a Pardon to Donald Trump? - The National Interest - January 19th, 2021