| | Advanced Search

 

Misquamicut Beach to Present FallFest—The Misquamicut Business Association will host FallFest at…

Gronkowski “Good to Go” Week 1—Rob Gronkowski told reporters at Gillette Stadium that…

Russell Moore: Experience Makes Caprio a No-Brainer for Treasurer—Let's face it: politics is strange business.

Smart Benefits: Two Regs Issued on Contraceptive Coverage—Two regulations on contraceptive coverage were recently issued…

Peace Flag Project to Host Rhode Island Month of Peace in September—The Peace Flag Project will host over 30…

Don’t Miss: Fall Newport Secret Garden Tours—The Benefactors of the Arts will present a…

Fall Activities for the Whole Family—Mark your calendars for the best activities of…

Skywatching: Seagrave Memorial Observatory Centennial (1914-2014)—Skyscrapers, Inc., the Amateur Astronomical Society of Rhode…

The Urban Gardener: Harvesting Green Beans + Sunflowers—Gardening made simple...

Friday Financial Five - August 29, 2014—The Tax Foundation has put together a helpful…

 
 

LEGAL MATTERS: Religious Challenges to Obamacare

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

 

As part of Obamacare, insurance coverage must include contraception; what does the future hold for religious challenges? Photo: starbooze/flickr.

The Supreme Court upheld the linchpin of Obamacare – the requirement that individuals obtain health insurance – but it will soon have to rule on just what that insurance has to look like. The federal government says the coverage must include women’s contraceptives; the plaintiffs in more than 45 lawsuits heading to the Supreme Court object to that on religious grounds.

Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act, the official name of Obamacare, will impose crippling financial penalties on certain companies (50+ full-time employees) that don’t offer insurance covering all “contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures” approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including IUD’s and morning-after pills. Some religious teachings, including Roman Catholic orthodoxy, contend the pills are sinful, abortion-inducing and gravely immoral. The government believes it has accommodated those beliefs by exempting churches from the Act, but not everyone agrees.

Balancing Test

The Constitution addresses religion freedom in one sentence in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

“No law” is a strong statement but not as absolute as you might think. For instance, the Supreme Court upheld a law that prevented a Native American tribe from using peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, in its religious ceremonies. As Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained in that case, the First Amendment does not mean "an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate."

Instead of striking down every law someone objects to on religious grounds, courts use a two-part test to decide whether a law violate the 1st Amendment. First, they consider whether the law “substantially burdens” a person’s ability to practice his or her religion. In the rare situation that a law does, courts then consider whether there is a compelling reason for the law and whether the government could achieve the goal of the law in a way that does not interfere with religious practices.

Applying basically that test, the Supreme Court has upheld zoning, labor, and tax laws that interfere with church activities. Courts have also held people have to pay taxes even though the government spends money on activities they object to on religious grounds, such as military spending and paying for abortions.

You Be The Judge

Now that you know a little about the law, consider how you would decide these cases:

1. A Catholic family owns a HVAC manufacturing company and supports the church’s teaching prohibiting all forms of artificial birth control. They do not discriminate against their non-Catholic employees, but they are open about their religious beliefs at work. Does requiring them to include coverage for the pill in their company’s health insurance plan violate their Constitutional right to practice their religion? (One lower federal court held it does.)

2. A devote Christian family owns a nationwide chain of hobby stores. They do not object to covering the pill, but they do object to having to cover the morning-after pill. Does it violate their rights to require them to include coverage for the morning-after pill? (A higher federal court recently held it does not.)

Would your opinion change if Jehovah’s Witnesses owned the companies and they objected to any coverage for care that involved blood transfusions?

3. A Roman Catholic Diocese employees people regardless of their religious views and provides social services to people of all faiths. Does it violate the organization’s rights to require it to provide birth control in the insurance plan its offers its lay employees? (Neither Rhode Island nor Massachusetts dioceses have filed suit against the Act, but about a dozen dioceses have; courts have decided the cases both ways.)

More Litigation

Obamacare will be litigated for years; not because lawyers like to sue, but because our Constitution is not as black and white as some people think it is. 

John Longo is a consumer rights attorney practicing law in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. He represents consumers who have disputes with businesses, employees cheated out of their wages or overtime, car buyers stuck with Lemons, and people in need of bankruptcy protection. He is a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, and the Rhode Island Association for Justice.

 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Comments:

Jehovah's Witnesses *blood transfusion confusion*.

In 2013 God's will and scripture has little to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses position on use of blood products.
The JW leadership is foremost concerned what will play out in a secular court of law as to the parent Watchtower being held liable for wrongful deaths.
Most Jehovah's Witnesses rushed to the ER with massive blood loss will cry NO BLOOD right up to their last breath.

The shocker is they can now have most of the blood components that will pull them through,but they are so indoctrinated that blood is forbidden that they can't comprehend the loopholes.
The Watchtower has drilled and grilled us that our stand on blood is NON NEGOTIABLE.
The loopholes that allow blood usage is to save the Watchtower corporation money from blood death liability suits.
This is a truly evil organization that would sacrifice tens of thousands of men,women,children for the almighty dollar.
The blood products ban has been in force since 1945 the buzz today about it being a *personal conscience matter* and the hope of new medical advances like artificial blood don't undo all those who have past perished.
The New York city based Watchtower sect is concerned foremost with liability lawsuits for wrongful death.They know that if they repeal the ban on *whole* blood transfusion,that it will open the door for legal examination of all the thousands who have died since 1945.

Cults do get people killed!

50-100 times as many men,women,children have been killed by the Watchtower society ban on *whole* blood transfusions than at Jonestown kool-aid mass murders.

*tell the truth don't be afraid*

--
Danny Haszard

Comment #1 by Danny Haszard on 2013 02 01

Jehovah's Witnesses *blood transfusion confusion*.

In 2013 God's will and scripture has little to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses position on use of blood products.
The JW leadership is foremost concerned what will play out in a secular court of law as to the parent Watchtower being held liable for wrongful deaths.
Most Jehovah's Witnesses rushed to the ER with massive blood loss will cry NO BLOOD right up to their last breath.

The shocker is they can now have most of the blood components that will pull them through,but they are so indoctrinated that blood is forbidden that they can't comprehend the loopholes.
The Watchtower has drilled and grilled us that our stand on blood is NON NEGOTIABLE.
The loopholes that allow blood usage is to save the Watchtower corporation money from blood death liability suits.
This is a truly evil organization that would sacrifice tens of thousands of men,women,children for the almighty dollar.
The blood products ban has been in force since 1945 the buzz today about it being a *personal conscience matter* and the hope of new medical advances like artificial blood don't undo all those who have past perished.
The New York city based Watchtower sect is concerned foremost with liability lawsuits for wrongful death.They know that if they repeal the ban on *whole* blood transfusion,that it will open the door for legal examination of all the thousands who have died since 1945.

Cults do get people killed!

50-100 times as many men,women,children have been killed by the Watchtower society ban on *whole* blood transfusions than at Jonestown kool-aid mass murders.

*tell the truth don't be afraid*

--
Danny Haszard

Comment #2 by Danny Haszard on 2013 02 01

Sorry double post server lag

Comment #3 by Danny Haszard on 2013 02 01




Write your comment...

You must be logged in to post comments.