• xuinkrbin

    While the theory is interesting, the Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions generalized religious exemptions do not violate the Establishment Clause. One prominent case is Gonzales v. UDV.

    As far as “where are the Women”, it may have something to do with the fact the presence of the mandante supposedly burdens the legally protected free exercise rights of the Objectors while a lack of mandate does not burden the legal right of Women to obtain contraception; the mandate makes obtain contraception easier for Some but that’s not the same as saying it’s absence burdens that right. However, feel free to file suit against the absence of such a mandate in cases where the mandate does not apply. Let Me know how that works out for You.

    • ghhshirley

      You are comparing a case about whether the federal government can bar a church from importing a hallucinogenic tea that it uses in its sacramental ceremonies to the contraceptive mandate? Apples and Oranges. It is not like the contraceptive mandate requires the CHURCH to hand out birth control pills. In fact, they way the exception was written for religious non-profit entities means they can wash their hands of the entire issue…but they CANNOT PREVENT a woman from using her insurance to access contraceptives.

Mobile Theme