THE SUPREME courton Tuesday will devote a double session to hear arguments on one of the most contentious pieces of the Affordable Care Act: the rule that companies providing health-care insurance to their employees include coverage for a range of contraception services. Two firms — Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood — contend that complying with the law would violate their owners’ religious principles, so the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) demands that the government grant the companies an exception from the rule. We think the firms are wrong.
Congress has wide authority to regulate the public marketplace; that shouldn’t be at issue. But how much did Congress limit itselfwhen it said, in RFRA, that a person’s religious practices can be “substantially burdened” only when doing so is critical to pursuing a “compelling governmental interest?”
The government’s ‘compelling’ interest in protecting contraceptive coverage - The Washington Post
This should be interesting. But I do have some questions:
If the appellants prevail, does that mean companies owned by Seventh Day Adventists can provide their employees with health insurance that does not cover blood transfusions?
Can companies owned by Buddhists provide their employees with health insurance that does not cover surgery?
Can companies owned by people who think sex outside marriage is wrong provide their employees with health insurance that does not consider out-of-wedlock children as "family members?"
There's also the notion that the RFRA is not limited to Obamacare. Can the RFRA be used to override state and local prohibitions on discrimination against gays (there is no Federal prohibition). For that matter, if you have a deeply held religious belief in segregation (an argument that was used in the 60s), can you refuse to employ non-whites?
Can Jim Crow return on angels' wings?
Congress has wide authority to regulate the public marketplace; that shouldn’t be at issue. But how much did Congress limit itselfwhen it said, in RFRA, that a person’s religious practices can be “substantially burdened” only when doing so is critical to pursuing a “compelling governmental interest?”
The government’s ‘compelling’ interest in protecting contraceptive coverage - The Washington Post
This should be interesting. But I do have some questions:
If the appellants prevail, does that mean companies owned by Seventh Day Adventists can provide their employees with health insurance that does not cover blood transfusions?
Can companies owned by Buddhists provide their employees with health insurance that does not cover surgery?
Can companies owned by people who think sex outside marriage is wrong provide their employees with health insurance that does not consider out-of-wedlock children as "family members?"
There's also the notion that the RFRA is not limited to Obamacare. Can the RFRA be used to override state and local prohibitions on discrimination against gays (there is no Federal prohibition). For that matter, if you have a deeply held religious belief in segregation (an argument that was used in the 60s), can you refuse to employ non-whites?
Can Jim Crow return on angels' wings?
