I haven't posted about the HHS mandate recently, though believe you me it has been in the background or forefront of my mind. I am both a beneficiary and a victim of Obamacare: I stayed on my father's policy later than would have been allowed, but now I am about to embark on my own healthcare voyage. Because of the contraceptive mandate, my school has dropped student coverage, which was going to be my route. In the wake of the elections, I've had a hard time not being depressed by the anti-life state of the nation.
Now, however, cases are starting to hit courts and courts are starting to give answers. Here's an article about a Bible-publishing company who won their case... though I am sure it's not the end of the story for them. And it's definitely not for others (such as Hobby Lobby) who lost and are appealing. The rationale for decisions, based on the limited information from these two articles, seems to be that the courts want to exempt religious organizations but not religious employers (i.e. individuals) from providing contraception.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe distinction isn't between individuals and organizations, it is between churches and non-churches. The underlying idea, I think is that an organization which serves noncatholics as well as catholics, or which employs noncatholics as well as catholics, should not be able to impose catholic beliefs about contraception on those noncatholics it serves and employs. In a society where healthcare is so often through an employer, for a catholic hospital (to pick one example) to tell its employees that it will only provide them with health insurance that does not cover contraception imposes a significant penalty on those hospital employees who are not catholic and do not agree with the catholic churches teachings on contraception. And in a pluralistic society, that is not a legitimate action for the hospital to take. That reasoning I think is right.
ReplyDeleteAs a legal matter, it's not that the courts want to draw this particular line. The Obama administration chose to draw this particular line. The question before the courts is whether the first amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the Obama administration from drawing this particular line. When a court upholds the mandate, it isn't saying that this is the only line the administration could have drawn consistently with the aforementioned laws, it is just saying that this line is consistent with those laws, and other lines may be too.
I have not read the actual court decisions, but from the presentation of the article, the reasoning was not that the publishing company was a "church" but had an explicitly religious mission and values. Have you seen that the courts defined this company as a church? Nor did it seem to be about who the company employs as much as how they conduct their affairs. Again, in the court decision, did they reference the religious affiliation of employees? I haven't had time to look for this information yet.
Delete