The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Washington (AFP) – The U.S. Supreme Court said it will address the question of whether a firm can use religious grounds to limit the availability of birth control on its health plan.

The court’s nine justices announced they would hear arguments, probably in March or April, in two cases between the U.S. government and firms that object to purchasing health coverage covering certain contraceptive methods.

In the first case, President Barack Obama’s administration is challenging the refusal of Hobby Lobby Stores to underwrite coverage for certain contraceptive methods.

“The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women,” the White House said in a statement shortly after the Supreme Court decision.

The Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby chain says it manages its business “in a manner consistent with biblical principles.”

Joined by the religious bookstore Mardel, Hobby Lobby has refused to abide by the new health care law’s requirement that it provide health insurance coverage for four methods of contraception (two abortive pills and two types of IUDs), or pay a fine.

The chain has not challenged other methods agreed to by the federal government — contraceptive pills, diaphragms and other barrier methods — but it objects to the four specific methods on grounds they are in its view

comparable to abortion.

In a brief filed with the court, the company argued that “by providing insurance coverage for contraceptives that could prevent a human embryo from implanting in the uterus, they themselves would be morally complicit in ‘the death of [an] embryo.’”

A federal appeals court agreed, ruling that the legal requirement was counter to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The Obama health care law exempted churches and other religious organizations from having to provide coverage for birth control.

But the government argued that “no court has ever found a for-profit company to be a religious organization for purposes of federal law.”

The second case to be taken up by the court involves Pennsylvania company Conestoga Wood Specialists, which has appealed to the Supreme Court after losing a case in a lower court.

The firm, which is owned by a Mennonite family, is arguing that it should be considered a religious organization and included with other groups that have been made exempt from the law.

The White House said it already acted to ensure that “no church or similar religious institution will be forced to provide contraception coverage and has made a commonsense accommodation for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds.”

“These steps protect both women’s health and religious beliefs and seek to ensure that women and families — not their bosses or corporate CEOs — can make personal health decisions based on their needs and their budgets,” the White House said.

Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, said there was no historic precedent of applying freedom of religion protections to for-profit entities.

“In the entire history of U.S. constitutional law, secular for-profit corporations have never been understood to be protected by the first amendment right to free exercise of religion,” Wydra told AFP.

Legal analysts said the Supreme Court would examine whether corporations should be granted free religious expression.

If they are, it “would permit employers to impose their moral views on their employees, setting a dangerous precedent that would be discriminatory towards women and do great harm to women’s health and religious freedom in this country,” said Donna Barry, head of the Centre for American Progress (CAP).

Anti-abortion and pro-life organizations meanwhile applauded the Supreme Court decision to address the case, which dealt with “fundamental freedom of religion and conscience” issues.

“We hope that once and for all the Supreme Court clearly say that religious freedom in this country must be protected for family businesses,” said Kyle Duncan, counsel for Hobby Lobby.

AFP Photo/Saul Loeb

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less

Billionaires

YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}