The first thing to note is that this is not a First Amendment case. The Supreme Court did not find the mandate unconstitutional. Instead the Court found that, as applied to closely held family owned companies, the mandate did not meet the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of1993, which passed Congress with a nearly unanimous vote in both chambers. However, in 1997 the Court found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was unconstitutional in its application to state laws.

The law on which this decision is based requires that when a person's religious beliefs are substantially burdened by a law of general applicability, the government may impose that burden only when it can show a compelling interest and then only by using the least restrictive available means. However, this requirement can only be applied to federal laws and not to state laws by the 1997 decision.

That last wrinkle will turn out to be important in this case since twenty-eight states have a contraception coverage mandate in their state insurance laws or regulations. Ordinarily a Court decision of this type would automatically invalidate those laws, but not in this instance where the decision is based on a law that can only apply to federal statutes.

Will Hobby Lobby have to sue in twenty-eight states? It's not clear at all what the implication of this decision will be for state mandates.

Views: 959

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It may take a time to become clear. I'm wondering why any of this about contraception is even valid and what it has to do with the bible? Maybe we should have a pill for men that supresses nocturnal emissions. Just look at all those babies that are denied life.

this is a temper tantrum by religious conservatives that hate the potus, for whatever reason.  it's either his skin color, or more likely, their christian-dar.  like gay-dar, only for christians.  another hint that Obama's an atheist.  

You do know many think Obama is a Muslim, right?

lol, yes.  that was kinda the joke - that they can tell he isn't christian and ASSUME muslim, even though he's atheist.  

California's mandate was challenged in court by Catholic Charities of Sacramento. The decision went against them and they appealed to the California Supreme Court, which again ruled against them. They appealed to the US Supreme Court which turned them down, so the decision stands. I wonder if others will now bring challenges in hope of a more favorable hearing from this Supreme Court.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table...

best article i read today on the decision.  sorry it's not exactly about the specific topic you brought up, but it's a good read that's worth the time.  

Oh ... so they're off the "base" thing now and on the "vagina" thing?

I have been wondering for a long time is Hobby Lobby and other hyper-conservative Xian -owned companies object to insurance coverage of drugs like Viagra and Cialis....

nope, it's covered. as are vasectomies.

I would think that if grandpa can't have sex he's not very happy. Insurance used to cover it but not any more.

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service