- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
In Heartland Christian College et.Al., several religious institutions claim that Obamacare (ACA) forces them to provide coverage for contraception, contrary to their fervently-held religious beliefs. But what's rather interesting about this case is that the ACA contains an exclusion provision, wherein a religious institution that doesn't want to pay for contraceptives as part of the insurance coverage it provides can write a letter to the ACA administrators making a statement to that effect, at which point the ACA will step in and pay for the contraception "rider" on the policy.
But the religious institutions say that's not sufficient, since that provision makes them a party to providing contraceptive services.
I think that's a pretty weak argument, and most of the federal courts who have heard these challenges have cited the Hobby Lobby in deciding for the ACA (in Hobby Lobby, the supreme court specifically mentioned in the decision that "closely held" corporations weren't being given the same "exclusion" option that religious institutions were). In other words, it was clear that the SCOTUS felt that having the exclusion available mitigated the conflict.
Unfortunately, one federal court (the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis) found for the plaintiffs, and today the SCOTUS accepted the case. But if the SCOTUS is consistent with what it stated in Hobby Lobby, it's difficult to see how the plaintiffs can prevail.
But the religious institutions say that's not sufficient, since that provision makes them a party to providing contraceptive services.
I think that's a pretty weak argument, and most of the federal courts who have heard these challenges have cited the Hobby Lobby in deciding for the ACA (in Hobby Lobby, the supreme court specifically mentioned in the decision that "closely held" corporations weren't being given the same "exclusion" option that religious institutions were). In other words, it was clear that the SCOTUS felt that having the exclusion available mitigated the conflict.
Unfortunately, one federal court (the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis) found for the plaintiffs, and today the SCOTUS accepted the case. But if the SCOTUS is consistent with what it stated in Hobby Lobby, it's difficult to see how the plaintiffs can prevail.