President Joe Biden’s choice to run the Department of Health and Human Services, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, during his confirmation hearing last week faced much criticism from Senate Republicans over his qualifications, his stance on abortion and several lawsuits in which he participated. recently.
During the trial, Republican Senator John Dune, South Dakota, said that Becerra, as California’s attorney general, ‘spent an excessive amount of time and effort suing pro-life organizations, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor’, a group of nuns whose ministry focuses on caring for elderly people in poverty.
In his reply, Becerra said that he “never sued the nun – no nuns.”
“I have adopted the federal government, but I have never sued any affiliation of nuns,” Becerra said. “And my actions have always been directed at the federal agencies.”
Facts first: It needs context. Becerra, along with several other state attorneys general, did not initially file a lawsuit against a group of nuns, but did sue the federal government over a rule aimed at exempting groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor from the 2011 mandate in which employers are required to cover contraceptives for their employees. The nuns were later allowed to join the federal government as defendants in the case.
In 2017, the Trump administration expanded exemptions for the Obama-era mandate that requires employers to provide health care plans that cover contraceptives. Under the new rule, employers who had moral or religious objections to contraception were exempted from the mandate.
Instead, the Trump administration said employees could get contraception through the title X Family Planning Program, which provides funds for various reproductive health-related services.
A lawsuit against the new rule was filed in 2017 by California, which was later joined by four more states.
The Little Sisters of the Poor – who have been fighting the original contraceptive mandate for several years – wanted to intervene. The plaintiffs, who included Becerra, argued that they should not be allowed because the federal government is already acting on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor and similar groups in part by defending their interests.
‘California did not name the Little Sisters in the original document; in that sense, they are just suing the federal government, ”Adam White, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Law Institute, told CNN. ‘But the whole point of their lawsuit was to withdraw the rights that the government granted to the Little Sisters and other groups, which California acknowledged by arguing that the Little Sisters’ rights were exactly what the American government in this matter defended. ”
The federal judge allowed the Little Sisters of the Poor to join the case as intrusive defendants because of their strong interest in the case and its outcome.
“As the trials indicate, to be on the other side … of the Little Sisters of the Poor in a lawsuit, it’s a PR hit,” said Lawrence Sager, a professor and Alice Jane Drysdale Sheffield, regent chairman of the law school of the University of Texas. told CNN. “It’s hard not to think that’s why the group is intervening in these cases.”