Posted on 06/30/2014 3:57:58 AM PDT by markomalley
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce a critical decision on religious freedom Monday: Can a private company be forced, under Obamacare, to provide contraception and abortifacients to its workers, in violation of the owners' deeply held relgious beliefs?
"The government will not violate anyone's religious beliefs, but no one has the right to discriminate against a woman because of her own beliefs. And I believe that the Supreme Court will find that no business...should be allowed to discriminate against women," Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) told "Fox News Sunday."
What about the owner's right to religious freedom? host Chris Wallace asked Becerra.
"The owner has a right to his or her religious beliefs," Becerra conceded, "but that doesn't mean you get to discriminate against women if women have different beliefs than what the owner has, and the woman wants to exercise her rights under the Constitution."
Appearing with Becerra, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said he believes the health care law -- "as interpreted by the president, violates the First Amendment of the Constitution, and I'm hoping the court will uphold the rights of individuals for their expression of their religious freedoms."
Invoking the authority of the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department issued a regulation requiring all employers to provide birth-control coverage as part of preventive services in their health-insurance plans, or else pay a fine. But the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga say the government is compelling them to violate their religious beliefs as Christian business owners.
A key question for the justices is whether a for-profit business has religious rights under federal law or the Constitution.
The Family Research Council, in a friend of the court brief, argued that Catholic teaching sees no difference between an individual’s private and commercial activity; both are considered governed by one’s religion.
But Democrats, in their amicus brief, argued that when they passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, they did not intend it to apply to for-profit corporations.
Other have argued that Obamacare's contraception does not violate the free exercise of religion, because it doesn’t require Christian business owners to take contraception themselves if they have religious objections.
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in March, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan questioned whether Hobby Lobby could simply choose not to offer health insurance at all and pay the tax instead.
But Justice John Roberts said the owners have expressed a "religious commitment" to provide health care for their employees.
Or a unborn baby! ! ! ! !
They’re not discriminating against a woman; they’re just saying the government doesn’t have the right to force taxpayers to pay for their birth control so they can have sex free of consequences.
Democrats have a WAR on UNBORN BABIES!!!!
If the court rules against Obama today its going to send him the rest of the way over the edge.
If only they were illegal then they would have the “spark of divinity” in them.
Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it state that everyone has a right to birth control. Keeping your jeans and panties on works just as well. If you want to argue for men’s rights, shouldn’t we get condoms and Viagra?
Another article that starts out with a false perception of what this case is. Hobby Lobby does pay for contraception in their health plans. What they are objecting to is paying for the morning after pills that could terminate post-conception.
They’re not discriminating against “a woman.” They don’t want to pay for birth control pills for men, either.
I just saw that clip......Pelosi is CERTIFIABLY INSANE!!!!
It's not even that - they're just objecting to two of the dozens of contraceptives that they _will_ provide.
All this over 2 of 26 contraceptives? The objections are over the 2 that allow conception then abort the baby. So I think there is more to this than meets the eye.
Why would they fight this so hard if they don't really lose anything?
You can only discriminate against Christians!
1. Just to jerk people’s chain.
2. To establish that employers have the obligation to provide coverage for abortion.
Bacerra is mouthing Dem. talking points trying to steer the argument towards the so called “war on women”. This case has nothing to do with the right of women to choose. It is all about forcing company’s to offer certain kinds of contraceptives that it has religeous objections to. Women’s rights are not interefered with in this case. They still have their right to choose. The case is all about who pays.
What an idiot. No one is stopping anyone from buying anything.
I should not be forced to buy anything for anyone else if that violates my Freedom to practice my faith.
“Democrats have a WAR on UNBORN BABIES!!!!”
India (the largest democracy in the world) had lax abortion controls until it became evident that women were killing female children; now they restrict abortion to prevent that. The response has been either doctors collaborating with parents (telling them the gender without officially “telling” them), or women forced to give birth to girls simply abandon them along the side of the road (where they die).
Thirty years ago in grammar school my class had a 3:2 boys to girls ratio; today my sons have similar imbalances in their classes. Abortion will be restricted when a pattern becomes clear; in the meantime, some of us guys will simply have to marry imported women...
“I should not be forced to buy anything for anyone else if that violates my Freedom to practice my faith.’
How about “I should not be forced to buy anything for anyone else if that violates my Freedom”. Freedom is freedom. Once you start dividing it you diminish it. I hate this notion that you get to be free only if it violates your religious beliefs. Won’t work in the end. I am a Christian.
No communist has a right to invade our land, defile our culture and breath our free air.
I’m a woman and I don’t understand how refusing to cover three or four of the multitude of birth control options available is discriminating against me.
It is terribly important to the Left that we all have blood on our hands. I don’t know why that is, but they are insisting.
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.