Abortion Mandate Under Review by Supreme CourtNOTE: You can now leave messages on these stories by clicking the voicemail button at bottom of page. It might get played one of the weekly radio shows.
The Supreme Court took to hearing arguments over the controversial abortion mandate forcing employers to provide health coverage that goes against their religious beliefs.
At the heart of the case rests Obamacare, as it places certain criteria on insurance companies and employers to provide ‘adequate’ health insurance. One of the provisions is that contraceptives must be covered, and that’s where nearly 50 businesses drew the line.
Two of those at the forefront of the fight are Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. They are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized.
Kyle Duncan, lead attorney on the Hobby Lobby case and general counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told MSNBC earlier this year: “We’ve said all along that there’s no basis for picking out one corporation, the non-profit versus the profit-making one, and saying that one can exercise religion and the other can’t. Their moral objection is being made to participate in the process.”
Neither one of these companies wishes to provide coverage for any form of abortion. Opponents will argue that to rule for Hobby Lobby would be imposing religion on others, by forcing the women who work for such companies to pay the cost of their employers’ religion.
However, their argument is invalid. As they wish not to have something forced on them, their employer doesn’t want forced costs for something they find immoral. And that’s partly why this case is before the Supreme Court.
At the end of the day, the high court is relatively split 4-4 with a swing vote to decide it all. This landmark decision is likely to rest on the shoulders of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Kennedy voiced concerns both about the rights of female employees and the business owners, and asked what rights would women have if their employers ordered them to wear burkas, a full-length robe commonly worn by conservative Islamic women.
He also sharply questioned Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the Obama administration’s lawyer, over whether in a hypothetical situation a for-profit corporation, such as a medical provider, would not be able to object if the government required it to carry out abortions.
Liberal and outspoken Justice Elena Kagan said, “Congress has made a judgment and Congress has given a statutory entitlement and that entitlement is to women and includes contraceptive coverage. And when the employer says, ‘No, I don’t want to give that,’ that woman is quite directly, quite tangibly harmed.”
Sadly, the left believes Kagan when she calls it an ‘entitlement,’ and falsely claiming that women would be directly harmed for not receiving it. It’s not an entitlement, it’s a personal responsibility to make the choice to bring another life into the world.
Likely, we will see a ruling in the coming months which will be 5-4. Whether that ruling is in favor of the government, or these business owners remains in question.
Latest posts by Daniel Stafford (see all)
- PODCAST: Much Ado About Gruber on The Stafford Voice - November 17, 2014
- Guest: Raffi Williams Talks Election Night Outcomes - November 10, 2014
- Obamacare Architect: ‘Lack of Transparency’ and ‘Stupidity’ Only Reason it Passed - November 10, 2014