Even if it is true that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits the religious exemptions sought by companies opposing the contraception mandate, what of the harm imposed on those whom the requirement is intended to benefit? What legal argument centers their concerns? The answer may lie in the Establishment Clause.
Although the university was granted a religious accommodation and is exempt from complying with the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, it wants a federal court to block the mandate anyway.
There’s a growing conflict between states that recognize a fundamental right to make end-of-life decisions and those that override those wishes only when a person is pregnant.
Friday’s order may prevent the Obama administration from enforcing the contraception mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor, but it also may have just won the administration’s case.
The unsigned order means the religiously affiliated nonprofit does not need to comply with the mandate while its legal challenge proceeds.
State Rep. Gordon Denlinger is circulating a co-sponsorship memo seeking support in his effort to amend the state constitution from punishing a person or employer for making any kind of discriminatory decision.
At least three students are challenging the university’s position that making contraception coverage available to students and staff violates the school’s religious liberty.
The Supreme Court won’t take a look at Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban, but it will consider a bunch of free speech challenges to abortion rights protections.
Little Sisters has been getting a lot of attention as an example of how conservatives’ battle against the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate looks more like culture-war ritual than a good-faith effort to productively resolve the conflict between church and state. But there are many other, more typical cases.
It is precisely because life is sacred that I support the intentional—indeed moral—use of contraceptive methods by all who are not planning pregnancies.