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.
A case involving a Montana woman whose contract as an assistant softball coach at a Catholic high school was not renewed because she works at Planned Parenthood represents
the latest in a string of dismissals by religiously affiliated employers under the guise of religious liberty rights.
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.
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.
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?
The Roberts Court may be skeptical of buffer zones around abortion clinics, but the rest of the country doesn’t seem to be.
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.
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.
In a narrow New Year’s Eve ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blocked the contraception mandate from applying to a group of Catholic employers, while the Supreme Court considers taking up whether the accommodation for religiously affiliated employers goes far enough.