Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High court to weigh limits of religious liberty in O-Care case
The Hill ^ | March 23, 2014 | Ben Goad

Posted on 03/23/2014 2:09:56 PM PDT by jazusamo

President Obama’s signature healthcare law is headed back to the Supreme Court in a high-stakes case that could redefine the limits of religious freedom in the United States.

The high court on Tuesday will hear challenges to ObamaCare’s contentious “birth control mandate,” which requires companies to offer contraceptive services to workers as part of their insurance coverage. If successful, the challenge could peel away a significant portion of the mandate, potentially affecting preventive health coverage for millions of women and striking a major blow to the law itself.

But the court’s ruling could also have far-reaching implications for religious liberty by allowing companies to claim First Amendment rights that the government says are reserved for individuals.

“It’s pretty huge,” said Laurie Sobel, a senior women’s policy analyst at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s hard to overstate the possible implications.”

The case pits the government against a pair of for-profit companies — the Hobby Lobby craft store chain and Conestoga Woods Specialties, a Pennsylvania-based cabinetmaker. The firms, who together employ thousands workers in nearly every state, say they should be exempted from the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage because the corporation’s owners object to it on religious grounds.

The two companies’ lawsuits — among some 90 legal assaults on the contraception mandate — were consolidated into a single case before the court. The firms cite both the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which provides that, “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.”

In defense of the mandate, the government argues that corporations are not people and therefore are not are not afforded free exercise rights.

The firms — who could face millions of dollars worth of penalties if they are found subject to the regulations and refuse to abide — call the mandate a clear government overstep.

“Ultimately, whether it is the individuals, the corporations, or both who are exercising religion, the government cannot simply wish away the reality that its policies substantially burden Respondents’ religious exercise in a wholly unjustified manner,” Hobby Lobby argues in a legal brief filed last month.

The mandate, imposed via regulations drafted under the Affordable Care Act, requires, with some notable exceptions, companies to cover 20 FDA-approved contraceptive methods to workers at no cost.

The services run the gamut from condoms and oral contraceptives to intrauterine devices (IUD) and surgical sterilization.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga do not object to regulations requiring them to cover the majority of the methods, which prevent pregnancy by blocking egg fertilization. The firms take exception with the Plan B or “morning-after” pill and the Ella, also known as the “week-after pill,” which block pregnancy by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.

Conestoga is operated by a family that follows Mennonite beliefs, which say a person’s intentional termination of a fertilized egg is “intrinsic evil and a sin against God to which they are held accountable,” according to an American Bar Association overview of the case. They oppose both Plan B and Ella.

The Christian family that runs Hobby Lobby, which believes life begins with the fertilization of an egg, argues their beliefs preclude offering coverage for either of those pills, or two kinds of IUDs.

The companies could face steep $100-a-day penalties for each employee if they violate the regulations. That works out to nearly $475 a year for Hobby Lobby, which covers more than 13,000 workers, Sobel said.

Conestoga, with 950 employees, would face penalties approaching $35 million annually.

Attorneys for the firms note that the government has already exempted houses of worship and companies with fewer than 50 employees from the regulations, and has provided additional accommodations for non-profits with direct religious affiliations that hold the same objections as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga.

Thus, Hobby Lobby’s brief argues, the regulations draw a distinction absent in the Constitution or the RFRA.

“The government’s effort to dismiss that burden as insubstantial is belied by the draconian fines for non-compliance and its willingness to accommodate others with the exact same beliefs,” the firm charges.

But women’s health advocates say a ruling in favor of the firms could lead to a spike in abortions by limiting access to birth control. The healthcare law, they argue, guarantees a woman’s choice of contraceptive method.

“Access to no cost birth control allows women to choose what’s best, not just what’s cheapest,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

The advocates say denying these services to women while allowing the full range of men’s healthcare options is tantamount to discrimination.

They point to other court rulings that prohibit businesses from denying services based on religious beliefs.

“They are out of bounds, they are out of touch, they are out of line,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “And our bodies are not our bosses business.”

If Hobby Lobby prevails, the weakened mandate would likely remain in place. But it could also bode well for a series of other cases winding their way through the courts on the mandate.

In the face of those cases, the mandate — like ObamaCare in its entirety — is threatened with death by a thousand cuts.

However, the government has multiple paths to victory in the case. First, it will attempt to convince the justices that a company is not, in the context of RFRA, a “person” capable of religious belief.

If the court disagrees, the government can still make the case that the firms are not substantially burdened by the regulations. And even if they are, that burden can be deemed acceptable if it comes as the result of a “compelling government interest” to protect women’s health and that the goal is accomplished in the least restrictive way.

Failure on all of those counts could open the floodgates to a torrent of actions designed to bolster the religious rights of businesses, experts say.

The case comes to the Supreme Court on the heels of Arizona’s debate over a law (approved by the state legislature, but ultimately vetoed) that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to any customer on the basis of their religious views.

Similar proposals have cropped up in Kansas, Oklahoma and elsewhere, Sobel said.

“There’s a lot of stake here,” said Yeshiva University law professor Marci A. Hamilton. “This is the heart of the culture war.”

The magnitude will be evident at the Supreme Court Tuesday, as was the case on the sweltering day in June of 2012 when throngs of ObamaCare supporters and opponents gathered for the court’s decision to uphold the law’s individual mandate.

This time around, proponents of the contraceptive mandate say their side alone will have as many as 1,000 supporters on hand.

“We will be out in force at the Supreme Court on Tuesday,” Richards said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; conestoga; contraception; deathpanels; ella; hobbylobby; lawsuit; obamacare; planb; religion; scotus; zerocare

1 posted on 03/23/2014 2:09:56 PM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I can predict their decision right now: The Constitution must not impede the agenda of The Lightworker.
2 posted on 03/23/2014 2:11:30 PM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

“However, the government has multiple paths to victory in the case. First, it will attempt to convince the justices that a company is not, in the context of RFRA, a “person” capable of religious belief. “

Huh? I thought it was plan A from before which is threaten Roberts again?


3 posted on 03/23/2014 2:16:40 PM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company last election, and I laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Is it true that muzzies are exempted from signing up to Zerocare?

If so, why?


4 posted on 03/23/2014 2:25:52 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Never fear, a Supreme Court once bullied, will stay bullied.


5 posted on 03/23/2014 2:28:40 PM PDT by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Not sure...I’ve read in the past that they’re exempt but don’t know if it was just a part or in total.


6 posted on 03/23/2014 2:30:01 PM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I doubt that the first amendment was meant to constrain article I section 8. The argument that government is constrained was lost, and it strains credulity to think practitioners of organized religion deserve special consideration.

I didn’t stand up when the licentious lost their freedoms, because I wasn’t licentious. Yadda yadda. Tough. Deal with it.


7 posted on 03/23/2014 2:30:48 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

The specific religious exemption in the law.


8 posted on 03/23/2014 2:32:42 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/breaking-obama-carves-out-legitimate-religious-exemption-in-obamacare/


9 posted on 03/23/2014 2:35:13 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

the “birth control mandate” is NOT part of the bill passed by congress, but a decision of “doctors” on an Obama appointed “health care panel” who mandated it. In other words, these unelected bureaucrats made the decision.


10 posted on 03/23/2014 2:45:00 PM PDT by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
Is it true that muzzies are exempted from signing up to Zerocare? If so, why?

Not specifically. However, the law has a exemption provision for those adherents of a religion that has a 60-year (or longer) history and traditionally rejects any form of insurance including Social Security (the Amish, for instance). Muslims may well apply for this exemption and have it granted but not yet as that would trigger even more backlash against the Unaffordable Care Act.

11 posted on 03/23/2014 2:49:44 PM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc

Thanks, 0bama has completely adulterated this act and done exactly as he pleased while Congress (GOP controlled House) has stood by and watched.


12 posted on 03/23/2014 2:50:08 PM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CMailBag

Indeed they had the goods on Roberts adoption deal wonder what they have on the others?.
Is the Mafia learning from Obama&Co?.


13 posted on 03/23/2014 3:04:47 PM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc; All
... these unelected bureaucrats made the decision.

Great point LadyDoc.

Given the remote possibility that you aren't aware of the following, you might find it interesting.

The Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress and Obama, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress and nowhere else. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislitive powers whether it wants it or not imo.

So by unconstitutionally delegating federal legislative powers to nonelected bureaucrats, Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of the clauses referenced above.

And whats even even worse is that the States have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for public healthcare purposes. So not only is Congress unconstitutonally delegating federal legislative powers to unelected bureaucrats, but Congress is delegating powers that it never had in the first place.

What a mess! :^(

14 posted on 03/23/2014 3:21:37 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I think this is going to backfire on Obama and the dems in that contraception is not a treatment for a medical condition, contraception has been available for a thousand years and contraception is available to everyone.

This mandatory thing is only double dipping for PP.

15 posted on 03/23/2014 3:37:34 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
the limits of religious freedom in the United States

People in America can even think that phrase?

16 posted on 03/23/2014 3:44:07 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
Is it true that muzzies are exempted from signing up to Zerocare?

If so, why?

It is true. Religious reasons. Islam is the only religion recognized by this Administration.

17 posted on 03/23/2014 3:46:28 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: andyk
The argument that government is constrained was lost,

Government is not now constrained.

18 posted on 03/23/2014 3:49:02 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott

The controversy has already had its public phase a couple of years ago in MSM and even here. The paynim are exempt because of their religion.


19 posted on 03/23/2014 3:51:03 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I surely hope you’re right about the backlash to 0bama and Dems, religious beliefs take precedence on this issue in my view.


20 posted on 03/23/2014 3:56:50 PM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz
wonder what they have on the others?.

Everything; NSA, you know.And they don't even need anything real. Everyone knows that NSA knows everything therefore if a Justice is told that he will be outed for something that he knows and his mafiosic interlocutor knows is not true, then he must know that when publicized it will be vicariously "true" and he will be pilloried, perhaps even judicially tried for it, at least hounded. And I don't think the kenyan approach to a Justice is necessarily limited to release of information. Justices on the Court worry about the health and survival of their families.

21 posted on 03/23/2014 3:57:30 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I understand the religious issue but I think there's a broader brush to this...why is it mandated at all? Millions...and I mean millions of policies have been written with it being mandated. I had insurance. My doctor wrote me a prescription and I went to the store and bought it....with my own money.

What about women 50 and over or who have had their tubes tied or an hysterectomy? What about women who smoke? My doctor wouldn't give me the pill when I was 40 and smoking. What about men in general?

22 posted on 03/23/2014 4:07:10 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Yes, you’re correct in that it shouldn’t be mandated at all, I was speaking to the case coming up.

Though Mrs. jaz and I had insurance this was not covered nor even was pregnancy but of course that goes back more years than I like to think about. :)


23 posted on 03/23/2014 4:15:05 PM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicalnews/a/Government-Mandates-Free-Birth-Control-Pills.htm


24 posted on 03/23/2014 4:15:42 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

At what point does the adoption cease being something they could hold over his head?


25 posted on 03/23/2014 4:43:31 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

It may have been illegal.


26 posted on 03/25/2014 11:09:04 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

Justices on the Court worry about the health and survival of their families.

Like Obamacare?.


27 posted on 03/25/2014 11:10:30 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

-— I can predict their decision right now: The Constitution must not impede the agenda of The Lightworker. -—

Yeah. It’s a real nailbiter, huh?


28 posted on 03/25/2014 11:14:12 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Failure on all of those counts could open the floodgates to a torrent of actions designed to bolster the religious rights of businesses, experts say.

That right there is why the Roberts court is likely to find a way to twist the law to find against Hobby Lobby. A finding against Obastardcare would open the floodgates to a lot more litigation.

29 posted on 03/25/2014 11:25:32 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

You may well be right. I read earlier at the oral arguments the court seemed to be split and that Kennedy asked questions that could signal going either way.

Of course that’s one persons opinion and doesn’t mean much. They’re supposed to rule in June and I believe it could go either way.


30 posted on 03/25/2014 11:50:54 AM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

It will go against Hobby Lobby. Roberts has been bought.


31 posted on 03/25/2014 2:43:44 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

I think a little more immediate than that.


32 posted on 03/25/2014 10:27:09 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's EconoWell, that dmics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson