That SCOTUS Ruling We've Been Awaiting

It turns out to be a very narrow ruling, not a ringing defense of religious liberty, but nevertheless better than an endorsement of the Administration's principle that people must submit their religion to the state if they enter the market. It also isn't an attack on the idea that free contraception should be made available to women as a matter of state policy:
Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said.

He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.
Given the narrowness of the ruling and the fact that it doesn't interfere with the government's preferred policy outcomes, you might have expected this to be another unanimous ruling. No, it is not: it was a 5-4, conservative/liberal split. Justice Ginsburg, indeed, took the time to read her dissent in public. Her opinion is that this ruling won't turn out to be as narrow as it was crafted to be: she thinks it will have a sweeping effect that will create "havoc" for attempts by the state to impose its values on religious dissenters to assert a uniform corporate law.

6 comments:

MikeD said...

I have several friends who are objecting to the ruling. Almost universally they decry the corporation now having the "right" to deny "rights" of its employees.

And I love these people, but I want to smack them upside the head. You do not have a right to employer subsidized healthcare. The government cannot mandate that. And in attempting to mandate what coverage the employer DOES provide, they stepped over the First Amendment. And SCOTUS (rightfully in my opinion) slapped down yet another overreach by the Legislature.

Seriously, they believe they should have a "right" to demand an employer pay for something OTHER than their labor.

Anonymous said...

If I recall, the companies in question requested a narrow ruling, in part by objecting only to abortifacients.

Our lawmakers know how to enact constitutional legislation. They chose not to.

Valerie

Cass said...

I have several friends who are objecting to the ruling. Almost universally they decry the corporation now having the "right" to deny "rights" of its employees

That's pretty much a crock. This is such an emotional issue for most people that a lot of the arguments on both sides seem to miss the mark. Kudos to Grim for pointing out that it's a very narrow ruling.

Cass said...

Just as a side issue, it strikes me as funny how everyone's talking about this in Constitutional terms but what the Court ruled on was essentially a statutory issue.

E Hines said...

Her opinion...she thinks it will have a sweeping effect that will create "havoc" for attempts by the state...to assert a uniform corporate law.

I certainly hope she's right on this. Alito's opinion gets part way to the right answer, but he grounds it on false premises, which leaves the partial answer vulnerable.

Eric Hines

Ymar Sakar said...

Well, it's better than the broad one on abortion which the Justices got because one of them had a daughter they wanted to see get an abortion.