Obamacare is an abomination. They simply do not address what Americans need or want in a healthcare system – and to make matters worse, they are trying to force employers to follow their ridiculous demands as well, even if it violates the religious beliefs of the owners.
Case in point: Little Sisters of the Poor. Despite the Hobby Lobby Ruling, the Little Sisters will have to provide birth control – a Catholic NO- under the judgement. What the heck was the court thinking? Like somehow a group of nuns is less religiously bound to their convictions than a craft store?
The ruling holds that the Little Sisters believe that complying with administration policy renders it complicit in immoral activity, that taking actions that make them complicit in immoral activity is itself immoral, and thus that they cannot take such actions consistent with their conscience. The Tenth Circuit has decided that the Little Sisters are wrong about their complicity.
In taking the position that the HHS mandate does not impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, HHS’s main argument (echoed by the principal dissent) is basically that the connection between what the objecting parties must do (provide health-insurance coverage for four methods of contraception that may operate after the fertilization of an egg) and the end that they find to be morally wrong (destruction of an embryo) is simply too attenuated. Brief for HHS in 13–354, pp. 31–34; post, at 22–23. HHS and the dissent note that providing the coverage would not itself result in the destruction of an embryo; that would occur only if an employee chose to take advantage of the coverage and to use one of the four methods at issue. This argument dodges the question that RFRA presents (whether the HHS mandate imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the objecting parties to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs) and instead addresses a very different question that the federal courts have no business addressing (whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable). The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. Arrogating the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, HHS and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step. See, e.g., Smith, 494 U. S., at 887 (“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine . . . the plausibility of a religious claim”); Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U. S. 680, 699 (1989); Presbyterian Church in U. S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U. S. 440, 450 (1969). Moreover, in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707 (1981), we considered and rejected an argument that is nearly identical to the one now urged by HHS and the dissent. . . (footnotes omitted)/blockquote>
This isn’t to say that the ruling is entirely a pile of crap- just mainly a pile of crap. If someone objects to following a law based on religious exemptions, then they should be allowed that. The government does not have a place in that. Period.
Written by Katie McGuire. Follow Katie on Twitter @GOPKatie, or email the author at email@example.com
Sign up to get alerts from Joe!