Supreme Court revives Catholic groups’ objections to health care law

Print More
reproduction birth control

The Affordable Care Act contraception mandate continues to be a legal battleground over religious rights. RNS photo courtesy

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

A lower court that originally ruled for the Obama administration must reconsider the cases of Catholic groups that object to the Obamacare contraception coverage mandate.

  • James Carr

    The State has absolutely no right to ask the Catholic Church to provide medical practices that the Church condemns vehemently. This is gross interference with Religious liberty.

  • samuel Johnston

    The Catholic Church can do as it wishes as long as it does not have employees.
    As an employer, it must comply with the usual civil laws. American Churches are so accustomed to throwing their political weight around, that they have lost the uniquely American notion that individuals, not organizations have civil rights.

  • Pingback: Supreme Court revives Catholic groups’ objections to healthcare law - by Father Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • Larry

    And this is all more reason to repeal RFRA. It is leading to ridiculous legal arguments such as the phony notion of “corporate religious beliefs”. Somehow the alleged religious beliefs of an organization, a legal fictional person trump those of actual breathing human beings.

    It was a misguided law written to oppose possibly the best decision ever penned by Antonin Scalia. One where he actually held himself to real Constitutional principles and notions of rule of law instead of fictional of “original intent”.

  • James Carr

    The Church can just stop providing medical insurance and make their employees use Obama’s wonderful coverage. The next step will be forced covering a gay person’s gride or broom.
    Soviet America.

  • Larry

    That would actually be a better solution. They take the hit on the fines and the employees get coverage. One that is not hampered by the employers in their effort to claim ownership of the lives of workers.

  • Greg

    If freedom is to do as one pleases in an “[un]hampered” way, then isn’t Obamacare’s mandate to purchase health insurance, or pay a fine, just another way to “claim ownership of the lives of [Americans].” That argument goes both ways.

  • Larry

    Nope. But it probably works well with whatever silly talking points you were trying to make. Choosing ones health plan being unencumbered by the arbitrary allegedly religious foibles of one’s employer sounds like freedom to me. It doesn’t go both ways because you are arguing for an employer dictating terms to their employers in a way which attacks privacy rights. it is not religious freedom being exercised. Its simply employer bullying.