- Ben Carson: America’s now ‘very much like Nazi Germany’
- Heroin found on N.J. toddler at day care
- Pistorius trial: Police conduct faces scrutiny
- Gaza militants fire large rocket barrage at Israel
- CBO chief: Projected job loss numbers from minimum wage hike are fluid
- Rep. Rangel: ‘No question’ Harlem explosion is result of gas leak, not terrorism
- Dog left in car blasts horn for 15 minutes
- DCCC chair hopes Alex Sink will run again in November
- U.S., allies threaten ‘further action’ against Russia
- Obama to order businesses to hike overtime pay for salary workers
Supreme Court to decide Obamacare birth control mandate
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set up another showdown over President Obama’s health care law, agreeing to decide whether the government may force for-profit companies to insure birth control as part of their health plans, even if it violates the owners’ religious beliefs.
The justices said they will hear appeals of two related cases — one in which the lower court ruled in favor of an employer, and one in which the lower court upheld the Obama administration’s contraception mandate. The conflicting rulings made it an easy decision for the justices to accept the cases.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments and release its opinion before the end of its term in June. That decision would come just two years after the court, in a divided 5-4 ruling, upheld the law’s individual mandate as constitutional under Congress‘ taxing authority.
In all, nearly 40 companies filed suit over the mandate, with particular objections to insuring so-called morning-after contraception pills that they equate with abortion. The company owners say they face the impossible choice of violating their beliefs by complying with the rule or dropping health coverage for their employees.
Fines for flouting the mandate would cripple their businesses, owners said in court filings.
“This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution,” said David Green, founder and CEO of the Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby crafts chain, which won its lower court challenge. “Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”
The 41-year-old company describes itself as a “biblically founded business” and is closed on Sundays. The Green family, Hobby Lobby’s owners, also owns the Mardel Christian bookstore chain.
The company in the other case before the Supreme Court is Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania company whose owners are Mennonites. The furniture company lost its appeal of the contraception mandate in a separate lower court ruling.
Supporters of the mandate say contraception use is widespread, but at times unaffordable, for many women. They argue that corporations are not “persons” under the law who can claim religious freedoms and that owners of for-profit companies are not entitled to impose their personal moral beliefs on the diverse array of people they employ.
“As a general matter, our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor,” the White House said in a written statement. “The president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women.”
In court filings, the plaintiffs frequently cited their First Amendment rights and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which is supposed to prohibit laws that unduly burden an individual’s exercise of religion, in support of their clams. Federal appeals judges on the Hobby Lobby case referred to the Supreme Court’s campaign-finance decision in Citizens United to suggest that if companies can exercise free speech, they can claim religious freedoms and prerogatives as well
Ms. Lynch said the outcome is a particularly hard one to predict. But she thinks the court will dispense with the constitutional claims and focus more heavily on religious-freedom protection in RFRA.
While the mandate is certainly a burden, she said it may be a tough sell for the plaintiffs to prove it is a “substantial burden,” because of the distinction between what an employer must do — ensure that an insurer covers the services — and the employees’ role in acquiring and using them.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Tom Howell Jr. covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- House GOP sees favoritism in how Obamacare is rolled out
- Sen. Marco Rubio says Dems are angling for single-payer health care: report
- Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad wields big lead over likely Democratic opponent
- Sen. Chris Murphy will parlay Obama's foray into Web comedy into a formal floor speech
- Obamacare 3 million shy of target — with 19 days left to sign up
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
An America drowning in red ink is the land of the free no more
- Inside the Beltway: A new interest in Rahm Emanuel for 2016?
- Female TSA officers say pat-down duty leads to workplace discrimination
- Deportations come mostly from border, DHS chief says
- HURT: John Kerry The ridiculous face of a ridiculous U.S. diplomacy
- Last laugh: Marine vet fires off jokes from the grave with own obituary
- Special ops forces wearing thin from high demand
- David Jolly wins in Florida, GOP keeps swing district seat
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
Chaos as Manhattan building explodes
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again