Written by Don ByrdSlate’s Dahlia Lithwick today offered an insightful piece regarding the lawsuit brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor challenging the enforcement against them of the contraception coverage provisions in the Affordable Care Act. You may recall that the even thought the Little Sisters, as a religious organization, are exempt from the law’s requirement to provide such coverage, they object to filling out the government’s form certifying that they are exempt as a religious organization. To do so, they argue, triggers further mandates on other providers to offer it. They claim any participation in such a system – even participating in acquiring a religious exemption – violates their religious freedom.
Lithwick dives into this claim to explain why this argument may be about more than just a government form.
Written by Don ByrdPolitico reports on the brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by the Justice Department late Friday in the contraception mandate cases. The government argues the burden placed on religious owners of closely held corporations by the requirement to provide such coverage is not substantial enough to trigger First Amendment protection. The burden, they claim is too indirect.
Written by Don ByrdSCOTUSblog reports the U.S. Supreme Court today released the oral argument calendar for late March and early April. Included in the calendar are high-profile religious cases, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties. The arguments will be heard Tuesday, March 25.
Written by Don ByrdA federal judge granted an injunction in the class action suit brought by nearly 200 ministries challenging the contraception coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Among the plaintiffs is Guidestone Financial Services, which provides health benefits to the Southern Baptist Convention. The injunction comes after the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear similar challenges in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases.
Written by Don ByrdThe U.S. Supreme Court announced today it will hear the appeal in two cases involving religious objections to the contraception coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
Conceivably, resolving these two cases will give the Court the opportunity to answer the question of a corporation’s capacity to exercise religion. If the answer is yes, they likely would wade into the question of whether the mandate substantially burdens that exercise and whether the government’s interest in the case is a compelling one that requires the mandate’s application to all for-profit corporations.
