Many are understandably disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA. But while the overall merits of the act and its implementation continue to be discussed and analyzed, a lot of people remain concerned and confused about how, precisely, the decision relates to the HHS contraceptive mandate.
A lawyer-turned-friar, explaining “the new context for the contraceptive mandate,” points out:
Most importantly, keep in mind that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality of the HHS contraceptive mandate. There are two mandates receiving much attention in the news nowadays. While there is a relationship between the two, each is distinct from the other.
The first is the individual mandate, which will compel those without health insurance to purchase insurance via government-sponsored exchanges. The second is a separate contraceptive mandate that will require employers not otherwise exempt from the law to purchase insurance that includes contraception and sterilization coverage. The distinction is necessary to appreciate what the Court did and did not say in last week’s decision. The Court’s ruling last week only addresses directly the individual mandate, which it upheld in a 5-4 vote on the basis of the federal government’s taxing power. The Court did not pass upon the ultimate legality of the contraceptive mandate.
What is the relationship then between Obamacare and the contraceptive mandate? The authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to issue the contraceptive mandate stems from the broader Obamacare legislation. Accordingly, the challenge to the individual mandate could have had implications for the survival of the contraceptive mandate, had the Court decided differently last week. A brief explanation follows.
Read the article here.
July 10th, 2012 | 11:16 am
What is central to the debate concerning the contraceptive mandate is whether the federal government can force institutions and individuals to violate their consciences.
The answer is yes in some matters, no in others, and in the case of the contraceptive mandate, the answer is we don’t know yet. People making conscience claims, no matter how sincere, are not guaranteed to win against the government. The Religion Clause Blog is a great source of tracking winners and losers.
. . . this Administration is sending the message that while it allows conscientious objectors from military actions . . .
This is an odd example now that we have an all-volunteer army. In any case, the military conscientious objector must be opposed to all wars. If someone currently in the military is not a pacifist, but he believes the war in Afghanistan is immoral, he can be sent to Afghanistan no matter how much it offends his conscience.
I am hoping that some way around the contraceptive mandate can be found, but it bothers me when the issue is discussed as if all religious organizations or individuals had to do was establish that something troubled their consciences and that very fact alone obligated the government to accommodate them.