A Missing Argument on Contraceptives
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, NYT
FEB. 5, 2014
One of the most anticipated showdowns of the Supreme Court’s current term will take place March 25, when the justices are scheduled to hear two cases brought by secular, for-profit corporations whose owners want an exemption, based on their religious beliefs, from the requirement that employers’ health plans cover the full range of contraceptive services without a co-payment.
The question before the justices is whether the requirement, part of the new health care law, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a statute designed to give even greater protection to religious exercise than the Supreme Court had deemed constitutionally required in a 1990 ruling.
Throughout the litigation, the issue has been framed in much the same way by both the companies and the Justice Department, which is defending the contraception coverage mandate. The companies — Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet maker, and Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain — argue that requiring them to include cost-free contraceptive coverage violates their religious liberty. The Obama administration argues that it does not, with much backing-and-forthing about whether corporations are “persons” covered by the act and whether the imposition on the companies rises to a “substantial burden” on religious expression, which the act forbids.
(More here.)
FEB. 5, 2014
One of the most anticipated showdowns of the Supreme Court’s current term will take place March 25, when the justices are scheduled to hear two cases brought by secular, for-profit corporations whose owners want an exemption, based on their religious beliefs, from the requirement that employers’ health plans cover the full range of contraceptive services without a co-payment.
The question before the justices is whether the requirement, part of the new health care law, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a statute designed to give even greater protection to religious exercise than the Supreme Court had deemed constitutionally required in a 1990 ruling.
Throughout the litigation, the issue has been framed in much the same way by both the companies and the Justice Department, which is defending the contraception coverage mandate. The companies — Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet maker, and Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain — argue that requiring them to include cost-free contraceptive coverage violates their religious liberty. The Obama administration argues that it does not, with much backing-and-forthing about whether corporations are “persons” covered by the act and whether the imposition on the companies rises to a “substantial burden” on religious expression, which the act forbids.
(More here.)
2 Comments:
A simple principle that is missing from the article: Whoever pays for the band gets to determine the songs. If taxpayers are going to have to pay for everything for everyone, we can expect taxpayers to determine what people 'need.'
“Doug has no qualms about providing healthcare coverage,” Jeremiah Dys, a lawyer with the Liberty Institute said. “The problem comes down when … this particular healthcare coverage happens to violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of Doug Erickson.”
Doug Erickson, who owns the Hastings Ford and Hastings Chrysler car dealerships, said the government is asking him to fund morning-after pills as part of the ACA. Since Erickson believes that life begins at conception and those pills make a uterus inhospitable to human life, Erickson has filed a federal lawsuit against the government.
Thus the question becomes who should decide what is included in the basic insurance program.
What if the boss embraces the American Indian religion called Nemenhah which some of your readers may recall was the religion of the Daniel Hauser of Sleepy Eye. His religion did not permit chemo. The Hauser’s operate a farm … what if they instead operated a car dealership in Hastings … could they tell their employees that because of their religious beliefs no cancer treatments are permitted ?
Post a Comment
<< Home