Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 61.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

women to chart their own life’s course.  Effective contracep-
tion,  it  bears  particular  emphasis,  “improves  health  out-
comes for women and [their] children,” as “women with un-
intended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or 
no  prenatal  care”  than  women  with  planned  pregnancies.
Brief  for  186  Members  of  Congress  5  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted); Brief for American College of Obstetricians
and  Gynecologists  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  10  (hereinafter
ACOG  Brief )  (similar).  Contraception  is  also  “critical  for
individuals with underlying medical conditions that would 
be further complicated by pregnancy,” “has . . . health ben-
efits unrelated to preventing pregnancy,” (e.g., it can reduce 
the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer), Brief for Na-
tional Women’s Law Center et al. as  Amici Curiae 23–24, 
26  (hereinafter  NWLC  Brief ),  and  “improves  women’s  so-
cial and economic status,” by “allow[ing] [them] to invest in 
higher education and a career with far less risk of an un-
planned pregnancy,” Brief for 186 Members of Congress 5–
6 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

B 
For six years, the Government took care to protect women
employees’  access  to  critical  preventive  health  services
while accommodating the diversity of religious opinion on 
contraception.    The  Internal  Revenue  Service  (IRS),  the
Employee  Benefits  Security  Administration  (EBSA),  and 
the  Center  for  Medicare  and  Medicaid  Services  (CMS) 
crafted  a  narrow  exemption  relieving  houses  of  worship,
“their integrated auxiliaries,” “conventions or associations 
of churches,” and “religious order[s]” from the contraceptive- 
coverage  requirement.  76  Fed.  Reg.  46623  (2011).  For 
other nonprofit and closely held for-profit organizations op-
posed  to  contraception  on  religious  grounds,  the  agencies
made available an accommodation rather than an exemp-
tion.  See  78  Fed.  Reg.  39874  (2013);  Hobby  Lobby,  573 
U. S., at 730–731.