On New Year’s Eve Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor issued a temporary injunction against the Obama administration for enforcement of the contraceptive-coverage mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged.
The case of The Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged is
complicated and hinges on the question of whether a system set up by the
health law and the Department of Health and Human Services to allow
religiously affiliated employers to obtain an exemption from providing
contraceptive coverage in the employee health plan still impinges on
their religious liberty.
The White House insists that their “compromise” for religious organizations satisfied any risk to conscience objections:
“We defer to the Department of Justice on litigation matters, but remain confident that our final rules strike the balance of providing women with free contraceptive coverage while preventing non-profit religious employers with religious objections to contraceptive coverage from having to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage,” a White House official said.
This case involves religiously affiliated groups. The court has already agreed to hear in 2014 challenges to the law involving two private for-profit businesses with owners who oppose contraception on religious grounds.
The case of the Little Sisters, a not for profit organization is different than the Hobby Lobby case because Hobby Lobby is a for profit company. But I would suggest that even if the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby a company whose corporate mission has always been based on its faith, and the Little Sisters, they will not address the real question of the case because any ruling will not be broad enough.
The real question is what happens to companies whose corporate mission does not include faith, but things like abortion and birth control goes against the religious beliefs of the senior management?
What about the guy who owns three Pizza joints and wants to offer healthcare to his people–if his religious beliefs preclude paying for abortion or birth control should he have to pay for insurance which covers those practices?
The real difference is they way this government looks at religion, which is that faith only applies when one is inside their house of worship.
Religion teaches one how to act throughout their life. The most obvious examples are the commandments against murder or theft. Those commandments do not imply that one could kill someone and take their wallet just as long as they were across the street from their house of worship.
The distinction is more subtle than that example. The entire purpose of many religions is to teach people how to act toward others, the golden rule for example. Once when asked to explain the entire Torah when standing on one foot the Jewish sage, Rabbi Hillel, said “what is hurtful to you do not do to your neighbor, all the rest is commentary.”
Religion is not only designed to teach us how to act in our home life but our work life also. Judaism for example teaches us that employees are not allowed to cheat their bosses by goofing off. It also teaches that employers are not allowed to withhold salary from their workers.
How does that apply to Obamacare? While the progressives in government and the proponents of Obamacare believe that religious objections to abortion and birth control should only apply to Church organizations they are missing the entire purpose of religion–that is to teach us to act in a “Godly” way whether in a house of worship, at home, our place of employment, or anywhere else we go.
Therefore any rule that forces a person who believes abortion or birth control is wrong to pay for insurance which covers them procedures, is violating those people’s freedom of religion. no matter what their corporate mission or status.