Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hobby Lobby beats the Bullies

Hobby Lobby beats the Bullies

“Legal consequences of political tactics by today’s progressives.”

In his new column at the Washington Post, George Will examines the recent rulings of the Supreme Court on Hobby Lobby and unions.

As usual, Will has the facts on his side:

The Supreme Court reins in government bullies

Two 5 to 4 decisions this week, on the final decision day of the Supreme Court’s term, dealt with issues that illustrate the legal consequences of political tactics by today’s progressives. One case demonstrated how progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, manufactures social strife and can do so in ways politically useful to progressives. The other case arose from government coercion used to conscript unwilling citizens into funding the progressives’ party.

Under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), any government action that substantially burdens religious practices will be subject to strict judicial scrutiny to determine if it, rather than some less intrusive measure, is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. The Affordable Care Act, as supplemented by regulations, requires for-profit employers to provide health-care coverage that includes all 20 Food and Drug Administration-approved birth control methods.

These include four that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus. Some persons consider this tantamount to abortion and oppose these abortifacients for religious reasons. Why did Congress, having enacted RFRA, write this clearly incompatible birth control mandate? Congress didn’t.

Read the entire column here.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is scrambling to find a way to work around the Hobby Lobby ruling.

Robert Pear and Adam Liptak of the New York Times reported:

Obama Weighs Steps to Cover Contraception

The Obama administration, reeling from back-to-back blows from the Supreme Court this week, is weighing options that would provide contraceptive coverage to thousands of women who are about to lose it or never had it because of their employers’ religious objections.

The administration must move fast. Legal and health care experts expect a rush to court involving scores of employers seeking to take advantage of the two decisions, one involving Hobby Lobby Stores, which affects for-profit businesses, and the other on Wheaton College that concerns religiously affiliated nonprofit groups. About 100 cases are pending.

One proposal the White House is studying would put companies’ insurers or health plan administrators on the spot for contraceptive coverage, with details of reimbursement to be worked out later.

That last line speaks volumes, doesn’t it?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Insufficiently Sensitive | July 5, 2014 at 7:13 pm

That last line could be applied elsewhere, in the view of the current regime, regarding the 2014 elections.

One proposal the White House is studying would put election administrators on the spot for announcement of winners, with details of vote counts to be worked out later.

    “One proposal the White House is studying would put election administrators on the spot for announcement of winners, with details of vote counts to be worked out later.”

    Sounds like license for voting fraud. Announce the desired winner, then figure out how to make it so.

Insufficiently Sensitive | July 5, 2014 at 8:08 pm

It’s much like the Administration’s proposal to force insurance companies to cover certain expenses (ACA and RFRA both be damned), and work out reimbursement details later.

Worthy of Chicago ‘fixers’, which they are.

Why oh why is it a “compelling government interest” that contraception be communally funded (or provided “free”) rather than paid for by the persons who use it?

Why is it more “compelling” than paying for food and shelter out of a big communal fund? After all, food and shelter are more necessary AND more expensive.

    casualobserver in reply to Radegunda. | July 6, 2014 at 10:07 am

    I’ve wondered the same. All I can come up with is this: My mandating it to be provided free, and by continuing to make it more and more ubiquitous and as much a part of life as a pain reliever, you further erode any religious objections over time. The idea that the “new” argument that it is a primary and critical “health care” concern combines nicely with the past argument pounded – that it was freedom of choice for a woman over her body.

casualobserver | July 6, 2014 at 10:09 am

Someone should press the NYT and other outlets to prove their false statements that the rulings will create “thousands of women who are about to lose it or never had it because of their employers’ religious objections.” Just one example of a woman who cannot access contraceptive methods is all that is needed. Just one. Can they?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend