- Israel, White House say Obama phone call to demand cease-fire was fake
- Nancy Pelosi: Deporting kids un-Christian, sends them ‘into a burning building’
- Islamist militants seize special forces base in Benghazi, Libya
- Feds sue Pennsylvania State Police over women’s fitness tests
- Israel accused of striking U.N. school, killing at least 15
- Israel hits symbols of Hamas rule; scores killed
- Mississippi abortion law can’t be enforced
- Teacher who survived Sandy Hook has book deal
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in case vs. ‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle
- Middle Eastern firm’s deal to manage U.S. cargo port raises security concerns
Supreme Court to decide Obamacare birth control mandate
Question of the Day
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.
“I really don’t think they had any alternative than to take this up,” said Holly Lynch, a health policy and bioethics specialist at Harvard Law School.
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.
- Sen. Joe Manchin sued by his brother over old loan: report
- Putin a 'megalomaniac' who must be challenged with force: Sen. Johnson
- New Mexico decides to use HealthCare.gov for 2015
- New Englander Scott Brown turns his gaze to the U.S. border crisis
- HHS: 'Donut hole' reforms saved Medicare enrollees $11.5 billion since 2010
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
- Patent workers paid to exercise, shop, do chores: report
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Ticket me Elmo? NYC mulls law for impersonators
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- Obama mum on where illegal immigrant children are sheltered
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- Obama's brother wears Hamas scarf bearing anti-Israel slogans in photo
- Government OKs Arab-owned company Gulftainer to operate U.S. cargo port
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world