Latest Obamacare Challenge is not Valid

New York Times‘ editorial page weighs in on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear religious challenges to  Obamacare’s requirement that employer health plans cover birth control:

“The 1993 [Religious Freedom Act] was not intended to cover profit-making corporations, and any burden imposed on the employer’s religion is trivial — the law, after all, merely allows employees to make independent decisions about birth control.”

“In short, there is no substantial burden on religious exercise. Company owners remain free to protest against the different forms of birth control to which they object and call for repeal of the contraception coverage rule.”

“The Supreme Court’s challenge now is to recognize the real assault on religious freedom here — namely the assertion by private businesses and their owners of an unprecedented right to impose the owners’ religious views on workers who do not share them.”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
  • wish i could trust the right-wing judicial activists on the Court to agree

    • yippeekayay

      By “right-wing judicial activists” you mean the patriots on the Court? As opposed to the “left-wing judicial activists” who favor derpy last century European political ideology, the type of thinking most early American immigrants came here to escape? You must favor derpy last-century European thinking yourself from the sounds of it. Maybe you are European? You should probably move to Europe either way since you love it’s ways so much.

      • No, but thanks for playing.

      • Harold Underdown

        Your views seem right in synch with President Putin’s. Have you considered moving to Russia?

        • yippeekayay

          No but funny you should ask since a few generations ago my people were escaping socialism in Russia to find freedom in the U.S. and it seems as though shortly people will be doing the opposite, fleeing tyranny in the U.S. for the safety of Russia. Odd how things change.

          • SouthLeftTexas

            Odd indeed. Times have changed: you’d be hard pressed to find a more capitalist country in the world today than Russia. There is little to no interference with the ‘free market’ and the oligarchs who control it, unlike this country where we strive to maintain democratic control over institutions. Call that socialism if you want, but you seem to confuse capitalism with meritocracy, and they are clearly not the same. Time to change with the times, oppose elitism in all forms and move out of your socialist/capitalist false dichotomy.

          • yippeekayay

            I doubt your capacity or authority to judge what I confuse or don’t on this topic. You have no clue really, what my background in this arena might be. What on earth do you mean that we “strive to maintain democratic control over institutions”? We do nothing of the sort. What we do in this country is strive to maintain the appearance of “democratic control” while pursuing very undemocratic power at nearly any cost on the theory that might makes right. This is how our multi-national corporations operate and it is certainly how today’s federal government operates. I don’t really buy the marxian notion of “capitalism”. I prefer the term free market. The word “capitalism” implies the primacy of “capital”. A free market of the sort we’ve always cherished in America until very recently, has always included the notions of fairness, equity, equal weights and measures and self-regulation or self-government. Socialism is another matter. I prefer the Shefarevich definition of socialism.

      • emblaze

        Yeah, but what’s your opinion on Europe?

        • yippeekayay

          The food’s okay most places, but they don’t care as much about personal hygiene.

  • yippeekayay

    Speaking of derp, I am always amazed at the lack of personal embarrassment on the part of the NYTwits whenever they pontificate with such absolute certitude. How obnoxious to have them superciliously tell us what we think (or should think). By my measure, the “real assault on religious freedom” has been going on for some time. It is the implacable continuing imposition of a Federal state-sponsored religion in direct contravention of the abundantly clear intention of the founders. That the founders of this nation couldn’t have conceived of a religion as inhumane, misochristian, heterophobic and theophobic as today’s scientific materialistic secularism is beside the point. They eschewed any establishment of religion by the Federal government even if that religion were good religion, like Christianity. But they certainly wouldn’t have condoned the establishment of such hostile, intolerant bad religion as the religion the leftist extremists in the White House and their secularist fellow-travelers are pushing on us today.

    • good luck with that sophistry

    • SouthLeftTexas

      Pack the big words away. Go read the Yoder case, Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, RFRA, and City of Boerne v. Flores and then you’ll be up to speed on the legal issues here and you’ll understand the context of the opinion you’re blindly rejecting for no reason other than the source.

      • yippeekayay

        I didn’t use any especially big words, bud. And I have absolutely no desire at all to read any cases. I’ve had my fill of disingenuous rationalizations and justifications, which is what the majority of todays SCT majority opinions amount to. Threshold this and litmus test that and hey presto, creeping tyranny.

        If you noticed my original comment, it was that I find it ridiculous a challenge to the legitimacy of forcing all employers to fund abortions should have to be based on grounds of religion. I find it undignified to argue that protest when the entire premise that the Federal government has authority to intrude in the personal affairs of its citizenry in this manner is abominable (or obamanable if you prefer).

Read previous post:
Obama Seeks to Shine Light on Dark Money

According to The New York Times, the Obama administration has taken a major step toward greater oversight of political activity...