Supreme Court to review contraceptive coverage mandate

Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images
988
Share to Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Add to PersonalPost
Share via Email
Print Article
More
By Robert Barnes, Updated: Tuesday, November 26, 12:45 PM E-mail the writer
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider a new challenge to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and decide whether employers with religious objections may refuse to provide their workers with mandated insurance coverage of contraceptives.

The cases accepted by the court offer complex questions about religious freedom and equality for female workers along with an issue the court has not yet confronted: whether secular, for-profit corporations are protected by the Constitution or federal statute from complying with a law because of their owners’ religious beliefs.

More from PostPolitics
Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economics
Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economics
Aaron Blake 11:00 AM ET
In the first lengthy writing of his papacy, Francis says such economic theories naively rely on the goodness of those in charge.
Harry Reid’s confusing filibuster tweet
Harry Reid’s confusing filibuster tweet
Glenn Kessler 6:00 AM ET
A tweet by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid obscures a very complex debate about Senate delays.
Al Gore goes vegan, with little fanfare
Al Gore goes vegan, with little fanfare
Juliet Eilperin NOV 25
Former vice president Al Gore has gone vegan, just like the president with whom he once served.
Read more
Click here to subscribe.

The justices accepted two cases that produced opposite results in lower courts.

One was brought by the owners of Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain that its owner David Green said is run on biblical principles. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver said forcing the company to comply with the contraceptive mandate would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In a divided opinion, the court relied in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which said corporations had political speech rights just as individuals do.

“We see no reason the Supreme Court would recognize constitutional protection for a corporation’s political expression but not its religious expression,” Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote for the majority.

The second case went the other way. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia ruled that a Pennsylvania cabinet-making company owned by a Mennonite family must comply with the contraceptive mandate.

That decision noted the 10th Circuit’s opinion but said there was a “total absence of caselaw” to support the argument that corporations are protected by the guarantee of free exercise of religion.

“Even if we were to disregard the lack of historical recognition of the right, we simply cannot understand how a for-profit, secular corporation — apart from its owners — can exercise religion,” wrote Circuit Judge Robert E. Cowen.

The religious freedom act prohibits the federal government from imposing a “substantial burden” on a person’s exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling governmental interest” and the measure is the least restrictive method of achieving the interest.

The court said the cases would be consolidated for oral argument, which likely will come in March.

In a statement, White House press secretary Jay Carney said: “We believe this requirement is lawful and essential to women’s health and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.

“As a general matter, our policy is designed to ensure that health-care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor,” Carney said. “The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women.”

The cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ?Post+gene

Most Americans like contraceptive mandate for businesses — in one chart
BY SEAN SULLIVAN AND SCOTT CLEMENT
November 26 at 2:36 pm
More
0 Comments
The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to consider whether employers objecting to contraception on religious grounds should be compelled to cover their employees' use of contraceptives anyhow has cast a renewed spotlight on an element of Obamacare that has received a great deal of attention the past couple of years.
Where do Americans stand on the mandate? Data show most have come down on the side of the Obama administration in favor of requiring contraceptive coverage, even as the issue has sparked intense feelings on both sides. That includes the specific question of whether secular private companies should be mandated to cover contraception, which is what is at issue in this case.
Fifty-three percent of Americans said privately owned small businesses should be required to provide their employees with health plans that cover contraception at no cost, according to a March 2012 Public Religion Research Institute survey. By comparison, 43 percent said such companies should not have to offer the coverage.
Chart courtesy of Public Religion Research Institute Web site.
(Public Religion Research Institute Web site)

After a backlash from religious groups and leaders, the Obama administration earlier this year opted to exempt certain religious organizations from the coverage requirement. But not corporations whose owners object on religious grounds. A pair of such companies are at the center of the cases the Supreme Court took up Tuesday.
When it came to publicly held corporations, Americans overwhelmingly supported the mandate by a 62 percent to 33 percent margin in the 2012 poll.
While Americans are less likely to support the mandate when it comes places of worship (which are exempted) compared to private companies, they have broadly favored the idea that insurance companies be mandated to cover the full cost of contraception for women. A March 2012 Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that about six in 10 (61 percent) of Americans agreed with the mandate, compared to 35 percent who opposed it.
Questions about the mandate are sure to surface in polls again in coming months given the Supreme Court's decisions to look at this matter closely. But based on the data we have seen, the public, for what it's worth, doesn't seem to think private companies should be exempted.

Also on The Fix
John Kasich's Medicaid expansion gambit is a double-edged sword

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... one-chart/

Breaking- Scientologists want their businesses to be exempted from providing mental health coverage under Obamacare

I guess they believe that IF they don't cover contraceptive, people will stop having sex?

And this:One was brought by the owners of Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain that its owner David Green said is run on biblical principles.

Yeah. Sure. Until it comes down to deciding pricing and profit margin.
I guess they wouldn't accept cash from people who do not believe in biblical principles too?

I can understand that. Their premiums would be astronomical. Probably around US$ 100.00 per thetan.

Hmmm......I wonder if major shareholders in corporations who are claiming religious exemption because of their beliefs are prepared to give up the limited liability protection they receive by being arms length from their corporations. In effect what they are saying is "this corporation is me and my beliefs for the purposes I want it to be me but it is a separate entity for those things I don't want to be me....like liable if things go shit finger."

IMO, the only sensible ruling would be that the individual can either opt in or opt out of the specific coverage. Anything else would be an infringement on the rights of the individual.