And yet, Scalia's past jurisprudence stands contradictory to the argument for striking down the Obamacare rule in question, which requires for-profit employers' insurance plans to cover contraceptives (like Plan B, Ella and intrauterine devices) for female employees without co-pays.
In 1990, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, concluding that the First Amendment "does not require" the government to grant "religious exemptions" from generally applicable laws or civic obligations. The case was brought by two men in Oregon who sued the state for denying them unemployment benefits after they were fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote, which they said they did because of their Native American religious beliefs.
Well that's different, those weren't white people.
From the linked article about the two cases: Both are for-profit companies. Hobby Lobby is a Oklahoma-based arts and crafts retail chain with and Christian owners so devout that the stores close on Sundays. Conestoga Wood is a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer of wood doors and other furniture. Both sued to block the mandate to cover contraceptives like Plan B and Ella, saying it violates their religious liberty. "Covering these drugs and devices would violate their most deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception, when an egg is fertilized," said the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby. The religious argument is obviously ridiculous, but I'm not entirely sure contraception should be a part of mandatory covered health care. Thoughts...? I'm unsure.The first case the court will take up is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The second is Sebelius v. Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and allotted a total of one hour for oral arguments on Tuesday morning. (Update: The Court has extended it to 90 minutes.)
Out of curiosity, why do you think the religious argument is 'obviously ridiculous'? Because of the idea that life begins at conception, or because of the notion that they would use their religious beliefs as a factor when deciding something that affects others? I don't think it is ridiculous to fight against something that you feels violates your morals. At any rate, its one of the better motivations to oppose a law, rather than seeking profit or influence.
A combination of the two, I suppose. My wording was unnecessarily harsh; the first six words were the throwaway part of my post and the last bit was what I considered questionable.Because of the idea that life begins at conception, or because of the notion that they would use their religious beliefs as a factor when deciding something that affects others?
Ah, very well. In my opinion (which admittedly is somewhat uninformed about the topics involved), I think it really depends on the type of contraceptive being covered. I think religious companies have a valid point in not wanting to provide thinks like Plan B, which essentially causes a miscarriage/ kills any fertilized embryo. Now, I don't want to argue whether or not that constitutes life or what have you, but I can definitely see the religious concern with providing such contraceptives.
I was approaching it from a cost/common sense standpoint. I don't really see why company health care should cover condoms, contraception pills, abortions, etc -- that has nothing to do with the health of the person in question.^ Abstinence is free. If you can't afford a kid, buy contraception. If you can't afford contraception -- sorry, you shouldn't have sex. I once read that starving teens in Africa use plastic bags. If it's good enough for them... I have no problem whatsoever with contraception or abortion but I do have a problem with stupid people having their stupid decisions subsidized. -- ^very rarely, it actually does, at which point you can throw this argument out.
If dick pumps are covered then so should contraceptives.