Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Zubik v. Burwell - Little Sisters of the Unreasonable

Little Sisters of the Poor
In an editorial today, the venerable New York Times correctly explains that Zubik v. Burwell wasn't really about forcing religious groups to provide birth control to their employees. Contrary to the usual right wing self-righteous noise makers this also has nothing to do with abortion. Yesterday the Supreme Court punted this matter back to the lower courts but the controversy requires some perspective:
The Obama administration, mindful of concerns over religious freedom, has already provided a way out for these employers: They must notify their insurer or the government, in writing, of their objection, at which point the government takes over and provides coverage for the contraceptives at no cost to the employers.

This sensible arrangement was not enough for several plaintiffs who said it still violated their religious freedom under a federal law, because the act of notification itself made them complicit in the provision of birth control.

Eight federal courts of appeals have already rejected this claim, finding that such a minor requirement did not place a substantial burden on the objectors’ religious freedom.
The full editorial is here.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.