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.
What if the battalions of lawyers, pundits, and politicians have missed the easiest—and possibly best—argument against “corporate religious liberty rights” in the high-profile legal cases that challenge the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act?
In late March, the Roberts Court will consider whether corporations are people under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and whether the First Amendment recognizes corporate religious rights.
A federal judge ruled Monday the Obama administration’s accommodation for religiously-affiliated employers did not go far enough in protecting religious liberties.
The Roberts Court granted review of two cases challenging the birth control benefit to decide the question of whether or not corporations have religious exercise rights.
The Roberts Court will meet in conference Tuesday to consider entering into the fight over corporate religious rights.
With a strong split in the federal appeals courts over the issue of for-profit corporate religious rights, Supreme Court intervention is practically inevitable.
Right to Life of Michigan’s federal lawsuit adds to a pile of recent court cases challenging whether corporations can refuse to provide employees contraception coverage in employer-sponsored health insurance plans on moral grounds.
A ruling Friday by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the political nature of the fight over the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act.
The challenges to the contraception mandate have very little to do with religious beliefs, the court held, and everything to do with a lack of corporate accountability.