RP from my man John C Richards Jr Thoughts? So heres the main question the court answered today (and a quick legal synopsis why): Do you surrender religious liberties when you establish a for-profit corporation? The Court said no and ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. There is a two-part legal test laid out with First Amendment and Free Exercise of Religion claims. This is important. Any law or policy that impacts a persons religious freedom must pass both: 1) Does it serve a compelling state interest? 2) Does the law or policy use the least restrictive means available? Interestingly, most people are stuck on #1. Theres no doubt that contraception serves a compelling state interest. In fact, neither Hobby Lobby or the other petitioner challenged the need for contraception. Hobby Lobby did not outright reject contraception (in fact, they only challenged 4 of 20 contraception methods required by the Affordable Care Act). Prong #2 is where the rubber really meets the road. Did the Affordable Care Act use the least restrictive means available to meet that compelling state interest (i.e. the need for affordable health care and contraception)? Had Hobby Lobby refused to offer those four methods, based on the ACA, the cost would have been upwards of $475 million dollars. The number of alternatives didnt make the ACAs provision the least restrictive means available to serve the compelling interest the law tried to achieve. For the Court: this wasnt about regulating a womans womb, more than it was about regulating the religious freedom and faith practice of a closely held Christian corporation. #TheMoreYouKnow #JustInCaseYouNeededIt
Posted on: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:23:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015