SCotUS to review contraception mandate

[BDBoop]

Supreme Court to Review Health Law's Contraception Mandate - WSJ.com

Another interesting case, especially given the 'corporations are people too, my friend!' aspect.

The cases hold implications beyond even the politically charged health law. They carry the potential of expanding First Amendment rights for corporations, a concept the Supreme Court embraced in the 2010 opinion known as Citizens United, which found that corporations held political speech rights akin to those of individuals.

This time, the question involves whether corporations have similar rights to religious expression.

In July, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Philadelphia, found that "secular, for-profit corporations cannot engage in religious exercise." While Conestoga's Mennonite owners, the Hahn family, may have a sincere religious objection to contraceptives that may act upon the fertilized egg, such as the so-called morning after pill, the corporation they operated had no beliefs of its own, the court found.

"As the Hahns have decided to utilize the corporate form, they cannot 'move freely between corporate and individual status to gain the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of the respective forms,' " the Third Circuit ruled, citing an earlier case. It specifically rejected the argument that the Citizens United ruling extended religious, as well as political, rights to corporations.

A month earlier, however, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Denver, reached the opposite conclusion, viewing a corporation as a form of association that, regardless of its profit-seeking status, can espouse religious beliefs.

 

[koshergrl]

"
The right of church-related organizations to keep a clear conscience trumps the federal government's desire to improve access to contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Thursday in a preliminary decision that could set the tone in a legal fight of national scope.
U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab granted an injunction sought by the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, Diocese of Erie and several affiliated nonprofit groups that do not want their insurance administrators to provide what they call "preventive services" coverage.
The injunction allows them to continue to offer insurance that doesn't include contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs while litigation continues. Without the injunction, the insurance administrators for the organizations -- though not the dioceses themselves -- would have had to start providing the coverage Jan. 1.
"I was relieved, obviously, because the issue that we had been dealing with in this lawsuit is the protection of religious freedom," said Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, one of the plaintiffs in the case. "This is an absolutely critical decision. If it has to go to the Supreme Court, I'm moving with it all the way."


Read more: Catholic dioceses of Pittsburgh, Erie win injunction against Affordable Care Act - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

[Wry Catcher]

Justices to Hear Contraception Cases Challenging Health Law

Herein is the problem. By allowing religions to deny contraception any kook will be allowed to restrict medical practices based on their beliefs. It is not far fetched to see a business owner deny life-saving medical intervention in the health insurance they provide to employees when h/she believes in faith healing.

There are cases of 'insane' (IMO) parents who prayed and their child died - they are not urban legends, but real life tragedies.

Consider the points in this article before deciding which way the court might/should decide:

Medical treatment trumps religious beliefs, courts say - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Sadly it's easy to see which way Thomas, Scalia and Alito will vote, likely the CJ too. IMO, if God exists, S/He gave our species a very large brain, able to able to develop life saving measures. Why would S/He deny its use to save a life? Why would those who worship God make such an awful decision.

 

[DGS49]

Yes, it is far fetched.

Lost in the discussion is the fact that the Catholic Church is largely self-insured. They hire health insurance companies to handle administration of claims, but the actual payment for stuff and services comes from the Church. Thus, in including certain forms of repugnant contraception and abortion in the ACA's mandates, they are, in effect, requiring the Catholic Church to pay for...abortions.

And just for fun, let's consider a hypothetical church/employer that is morally opposed to, say, blood transfusions. A patient/employee comes along who needs a blood transfusion to live. Under the coming USSC decision, the employer/church doesn't have to cover it under their insurance.

The employee is not condemned to death because of a lack of insurance coverage, any more than she would be condemned to death if she quit the job and lacked any health insurance at all. There are a hundred different ways that transfusion could be paid for, not the least reasonable of which is, she could pay for it her fucking self.

Insurance is NOT healthcare, and the lack of it is not denial of care. In spite of what Sandra Fluke might think.