U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear contraception mandate case

The Supreme Court agreed today to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate in two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.

Salon summarized the dispute at the heart of both cases:

The owners of Hobby Lobby, a chain of crafts stores that plays religious music for shoppers, provides employees free “spiritual counseling” and closes down every Sunday, have been fighting tooth and nail to avoid providing their employees with the comprehensive reproductive healthcare required under the Obama Administration’s healthcare reforms because, they argue, allowing women to determine if and and what kind of birth control to use is a violation of its religious beliefs.

Certainly the case raises questions about the limits of religious freedom. But the extent to which the Court ultimately rules against the mandate may also determine just how far the “corporation as person” analysis can go.

Caroline Fredrickson, the president of the American Constitution Society, said that the case should be a “huge concern for every American, not just progressives.”  She added:

 The corporation is understood to be a separate legal entity from the people who own it. It’s always been understood as such. If the Court concludes that that Hobby Lobby is merely an extension of its owners and has the same religious liberty rights they do, then there is arguably no limit to a for-profit business owner’s power to flout any law he or she finds religiously objectionable.

 

12 Comments

  1. NitWitCharmer

    November 26, 2013 at 3:03 pm

    … they argue, allowing women to determine if and and what kind of birth control to use is a violation of its religious beliefs.

    I do not believe that is their argument.

    Their argument is that women do have a choice and that if a woman chooses not to the fund birth control purchases of others that that is her right.

  2. RJ

    November 26, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    I know how much you and GOP Rules and LSD like to claim expertise in every area, but you’re just flat wrong.

    Per SCOTUS Blog, the Hobby Lobby issue is: “Whether The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government ‘shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion’ unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.”

    Hobby Lobby’s explicit argument was and is that when the statute says “a person’s exercise of religion,” that a corporation is a person entitled to the same protections.

    This took me, literally, 90 seconds to find. So tell me, NWC, where did you get your information?

  3. NitWitCharmer

    November 26, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    1) Many women are religious
    2) Many women own businesses
    3) Many women are employees

    Therefore, forcing woman to cover the costs of abortifacients for others infringes on a woman’s religious or personal right to choose otherwise.

    Believe it or not women should be allowed to choose.

  4. RJ

    November 26, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    Wow. Thanks for setting me straight.

  5. Alan

    November 26, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    Just when you think some of the wacko posts can’t get any wackier….. It’s like reading through a Conservapedia entry…

  6. Alex

    November 26, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    Unions are getting all sorts of exemptions from Obamacare….why not other entities also ?

  7. Alan

    November 26, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    Alex, just once…. could you actually post a comment relative to the article?

  8. NitWitCharmer

    November 26, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    Wow. Thanks for setting me straight.

    What do you not follow?

    Women are being forced against their religious beliefs and choice otherwise to purchase abortifacients for others by the ACA.

    In short the choices of women are being curtailed.

    Is this limiting choices available to women something you support?

  9. Alan

    November 26, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    NWC.

    Your posting is both highly inaccurate & uninformed. You’re apparently confusing contraception with abortion, two, very, very different things. I understand that in the closed world of GOPLand and Conservapedia, you think they are one and the same. However, back in the real world, your comments make you appear like a foaming at the mouth zealot, at best.

    And you wonder why the majority of people in this country think the extreme right wing are dangerous? I think women made their ‘choices’ quite clear in the last election, overwhelmingly against the GOP, by the largest margin in this country’s history.

  10. Alex

    November 27, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Alan, you’re a real hypocrite in that you are always attacking other posters and calling them names. You cannot add any more credibility to your often weak arguments and understanding of the subject by trying to be a loud bully.

  11. RJ

    November 27, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    Alex, pointing out that NWC’s argument is not Hobby Lobby’s and that it is dumb by itself is not the same as calling NWC a dumb liar. He may very well be an honest and serious man, but writing dumb lies can lead a reader to other conclusions.

  12. NitWitCharmer

    November 27, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    You’re apparently confusing contraception with abortion, two, very, very different things.

    Included in the ACA mandate was the morning after pill.

    After conception the full compliment of genes necessary for a human to be human are present. It is at that point a line is crossed that divides that which is not human from that which is.

    While Democrats have difficulties with accepting the rights of all humans, I do not. Neither do many others. The fact is that the morning after pill stands apart from contraception and crosses a very real line into the immoral.

    It is that immorality to which many object.

    To include the morning after pill with contraception as Democrats do is uneducated.