The Supreme Court has agreed to consider "a new challenge to President Obama's Affordable Care Act and decide whether employers with religious objections may refuse to provide their workers with mandated insurance coverage of contraceptives."
The cases accepted by the court offer complex questions about religious freedom and equality for female workers along with an issue the court has not yet confronted: whether secular, for-profit corporations are protected by the Constitution or federal statute from complying with a law because of their owners' religious beliefs.Two lower courts came back with divided opinions on the mandate, so SCOTUS will play referee.
It's not as though there's no existing disagreement among various religious denominations about what medical care is acceptable according to their specific doctrine. There are conflicting religious edicts on everything from taking an aspirin to blood transfusions to prolonging life using extraordinary measures. And yet, somehow, no one is fighting their way to the Supreme Court on not having to cover those costs.
Funny how the line always seems to get drawn at female agency.
A cynical person might suggest that these religious principles are only as inflexible as they allow men to decide for themselves what sort of healthcare they want. Ahem.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus