HAF Disappointed with Supreme Court Ruling on Contraception Mandate
Washington,
D.C. (June 30, 2014) -- Leaders
of the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) spoke out today against the Supreme
Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In its 5-4 ruling, the
Supreme Court stated that closely held corporations could not be required to
provide contraception coverage to their employees. The mandate for
contraception coverage required employers to give employees access to insurance
plans that cover contraceptives. Hobby Lobby was one of several for-profit
corporations that filed suit against the contraception mandate, arguing that it
violated the religious beliefs of the company's owners.
"The Supreme Court's decision not only reduces access
to affordable contraception for millions of Americans, it opens the door for
employers to further impose their religious beliefs on their employees."
said Harsh Voruganti, Esq., Associate Director of Public Policy at HAF.
"Religious freedom does not entail the right to a blanket exemption
from laws one may disagree with."
The decision divided the Supreme Court and sparked a
vigorous dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg noted
in her dissent that the decision's logic could be extended to allow exemptions
from anti-discrimination laws, and similar federal statutes.
"All Americans deserve the right to practice their
religion freely and independent of government intrusion," noted Suhag
Shukla, Esq., HAF's Executive Director. "However, we share Justice
Ginsburg's concern that today's decision will embolden employers to circumvent
anti-discrimination laws under the cover of religious freedom."
HAF participated as amicus (friend of the court) in the Hobby Lobby case along
with a group of other secular and religious non-profit organizations. The
brief emphasized the need for the Supreme Court to protect the religious rights
of employees against employer imposed beliefs.
Catholic League
Religious Liberty Affirmed
Bill Donohue comments on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
today in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores:
Today's victory is welcomed by true advocates of the First Amendment. However,
because of the unremitting hostility this administration has shown to religious
liberty, especially in its lust for abortion rights, Congress needs to pass the
Health Care Rights of Conscience Act.
Today's ruling has important implications. It recognizes, for the first time,
that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applies to "closely
held" businesses, or corporations owned by a few people. This law
prohibits the federal government from any action that substantially burdens the
exercise of religion, unless that action is the least restrictive way of
serving a compelling government interest.
Practically speaking, the ruling will have a limited effect on private sector employers.
The vast majority of Americans work for companies that already provide for most
forms of contraceptive coverage, including abortifacients. Nonetheless, this
decision will further disable ObamaCare: Over 100 million are already exempt,
and now we can add "Hobby Lobby" type businesses to the list. Not for
nothing does Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fear that this ruling may cause
"havoc" to ObamaCare. Hope she's right.
Politically speaking, the ruling will have a dramatic effect: it sends an
unmistakable message to the Obama administration that it cannot continue to run
roughshod over the religious liberty rights of Americans.
Critics of Hobby Lobby have been trotting out horror stories about what will
happen if their side loses. Nonsense. RFRA was passed 21 years ago, and no
horror stories have been recorded. Scare tactics don't work.
Next up are the Catholic non-profits. We'll win on that one, too, only by a
much bigger margin.
Too Many Catholics On The Bench?
July 1, 2014
Bill Donohue notes the reaction of bigots to the Hobby Lobby
case:
"Once again an all-Catholic, all-male, all-ultra-conservative majority of
five has voted en bloc to eviscerate fundamental rights," said Annie
Laurie Gaylor of the atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation. Yup. Catholics
always conspire to do things "en bloc" (save for Sonia).
"Court's Catholic Justices Attack Women's Rights" is the headline of
Margery Eagan's Boston Herald article (it's those Catholics again).
The American Humanist Association issued a statement with a picture of a rosary
next to birth control pills. Cute.
In the Huffington Post, Ryan Grim noted that "these men [the five judges
who voted for religious liberty] are Christians." He also said, "The
Supreme Court ruled Monday that Christian business owners are
special." I guess the ruling does not apply to Mormons.
Also in the Huffington Post, Ronald A. Lindsay, a militant atheist, asks,
"Is it appropriate to have six Catholic justices on the Supreme
Court?" His hero is JFK, who famously threw his religion overboard to win
votes. "Unfortunately," he writes, "a majority of the Supreme
Court may now be resurrecting concerns about the compatibility between being a
Catholic and being a good citizen...." He's not resurrecting the old
canard—the Justices are.
Philip F. Cardarella, writing in the Kansas City Star, says that when JFK
ran, the question was, "How could someone who owed his religious obedience
to the Pope in Rome
and the doctrines of the Catholic Church truly be trusted?" Now, he
opines, "Five men on the Supreme Court—all Catholics—may well just have
proven him [JFK] wrong." Got it.
Catholics are 25 percent of the population and comprise two-thirds of the high
court. Jews are 1.8 percent of the population and comprise one-third of the
high court. Note: only the former is a problem.