The Roberts Court will issue an opinion in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases in June, but that decision will likely not be the last one on the contraception coverage requirement from the Supreme Court.
Federal courts are increasingly recognizing Title VII protects against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is why a broad ruling in the Hobby Lobby case could be especially devastating.
Ultimately, it may not be the conservative justices’ animosity toward reproductive rights and women’s health care generally that sinks the birth control benefit, but rather the Obama administration’s refusal to vigorously defend it.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases challenging the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Here’s everything you need to know about those cases.
Vox Senior Editor Timothy Lee said that if an employer restricts contraceptive coverage, “people are free to pay for their own birth control.” Here’s why he’s wrong.
If corporations are people with a right to refuse to comply with health-care requirements based on religious beliefs, it stands to reason that they would not only be permitted to refuse birth control coverage but other types of coverage as well.
The leaders of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation have invited themselves into their employees’ bedrooms and medicine cabinets under the guise of religious freedom, and these bosses are seriously out of line.
State laws in Arizona, Kansas, Ohio, and elsewhere that would enshrine discrimination in the name of “religious liberty” have faced political setbacks, but a legal victory isn’t certain yet.
Much of the defense of the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act has focused on the public benefit to making contraception widely available and affordable. But there are a lot of reasons to uphold the mandate that have nothing to do with birth control.
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.