Written by Don Byrd
As I posted on Friday, the Supreme Court has decided to take up another religious freedom case related to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate. Here, religious nonprofits, who are allowed an accommodation from the requirement under HHS regulations, object to the accommodation process as not sufficiently removing them from the provision of certain contraception methods that violate their religious beliefs.
Several commentators are weighing in. Here is a roundup of coverage I have been reading:
The Editorial Board of the New York Times writes: “This should not be a difficult case. In a secular society, religious freedom demands respect and accommodation, not a veto over government action that benefits others who believe differently.
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick writes that the case should “clarify whether any claim of religious conviction, if deeply held, can overcome the rights and needs of third parties.”
Law Professor Garrett Epps warns in the Atlantic that “if the Court agrees with [the plaintiffs’] argument, the same argument will surely soon be made by for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.
Writing for Think Progress, Ian Millhiser speculates that Justice Kennedy could be a deciding vote against the religious nonprofits because he has “expressed sympathy for the view that religious objectors should not be able to cut too deeply into the rights of third parties.”
Taking the opposite view, the Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn focuses on the success rate of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Little Sister of the Poor.
