By Robert A. Vella

True to form, it didn’t take long for the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court to contradict its own opinion in last week’s Hobby Lobby decision which supposedly granted the same religious exemption – from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate – to “closely held” for-profit corporations as that granted to non-profit organizations.  Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, said the ruling would not prevent the federal government from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives.  From MSNJustices: Can’t make employers cover contraception (emphasis added):

Alito said the decision is limited to contraceptives. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” he said.

He suggested two ways the administration could deal with the birth control issue. The government could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations.

The accommodation Alito referred to is a process allowing non-profit organizations, who object to the use of contraceptives on religious grounds, to submit a short form to the government which transfers their responsibility for proving contraception coverage to insurers or third-party administrators.

Fair enough, right?  Wrong!  It was revealed yesterday that the Court majority issued an injunction against the Obama Administration which prevents it from enforcing that accommodation under any circumstances.  Now, any employer can deny contraception coverage to its employees by asserting a religious objection.  From The Huffington PostSupreme Court Upholds Wheaton College’s Religious Objection To Contraception:

WASHINGTON (RNS) The Supreme Court offered a further sign that it favors letting employers with religious objections avoid the Obama administration’s so-called contraception mandate.

Over the vehement objection of its three female justices, the court late Thursday (July 3) blocked the administration from forcing evangelical Wheaton College to sanction insurance coverage for emergency birth control, even though it would not have had to offer the coverage itself.

In doing so, the court made clear that it’s not done with the religious liberty issue following the court’s June 30 ruling that closely-held, for-profit corporations with objections to certain contraception methods do not have to offer this type of coverage to their employees.

The Court majority’s hypocrisy in this case sparked unprecedented outrage from dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  From the Daily KosSupreme Court splits on gender lines in first post-Hobby Lobby case on contraception:

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor takes the majority of the Supreme Court to task for contradicting the position it took just a few days ago in the Hobby Lobby decision, when its decision rested on the premise that the exemption that the administration had carved out for religious organizations was an adequate accommodation and that it still achieved the government’s aims. Now, they’ve just undermined that very argument. She writes:

Even assuming that the accommodation somehow burdens Wheaton’s religious exercise, the accommodation is permissible under RFRA because it is the least restrictive means of furthering the Government’s compelling interests in public health and women’s well-being. Indeed, just earlier this week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.[…] the Court described the accommodation as “a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage.” […] And the Court concluded that the accommodation “constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.” […] Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today. After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates RFRA as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, see ante, at 29–30 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting), retreats from that position. That action evinces disregard for even the newest of this Court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution.

Sotomayor’s criticism is acutely warranted.  The conservative justices of the Roberts’ Court are obviously playing partisan politics by pushing a right-wing ideological agenda instead of performing their declared oaths as prescribed under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution (emphasis added):

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Apparently, those conservative justices conveniently refused to acknowledge their own “religious Test” during confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate, and are now employing them to dismantle the Separation of Church and State which this nation was founded on.  Furthermore, their unabashed deference to corporate power over the rights of workers and consumers violates another one of their oaths of office which obliges them to “… administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich…

Further reading and related stories:

Federal Judge Blasts Hobby Lobby Decision: Supreme Court Should ‘STFU’

Reason #1 SCOTUS Will Regret Hobby Lobby

“Grotesque Mischaracterizations and Fallacious Arguments” – Eden Foods in the wake of Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby: SCOTUS reserves right to establish state religion of its choice

35 thoughts on “Female Justices slam Supreme Court Majority’s hypocrisy on Contraception Mandate

  1. Pingback: Female Justices slam Supreme Court Majority’s hypocrisy on Contraception Mandate | League of Bloggers For a Better World

  2. Is there any way this situtation can be remedied, or do we have to wait for new justices, since only justices can reverse Supreme Court rulings?


  3. By the way, maybe you should have (The Secular Jurist) next to your name so that readers who are new to your blog know that which posts are written by you.


    • I used to, but changed it to an author-specific icon when The Secular Jurist picked up a second contributor (who rarely contributes). Btw, this blog would welcome your contributions if you’d like to extend your reach – if so, let me know.


        • I have an idea for a post for your blog- it’s about gun reform. Someone left me a long rant about my post on Target being forced to stop allowing guns in their stores, in which the person explained that guns are necessary, even in Target!!!!! My post will be of my response to his comments. I’ll start working on it now. It should be done in an hour or two. How should I add it to your blog?


        • The 3rd invite shows “waiting” on my dashboard. I don’t know what’s wrong, but I’ll figure it out. Can your post wait until tomorrow? I should have it solved by then. Sorry for the confusion.


        • Ok, let me know what happens tomorrow. I’ll write the post tonight so it will be ready by tomorrow. I’ll check my email again later on tonight.


        • The instructions say to invite by username or by email. I did both ([REDACTED] and [REDACTED]). The current invite status shows “waiting.” It should work. Perhaps there is a delay in sending the email invitation, or maybe it’s being caught by spam filters.


        • Glory be! I’m going to write a post introducing you as a new author on The Secular Jurist. What name do you want to use?

          Btw, I redacted your email address on this comment thread for security purposes.


        • Okay Tanya, something is preventing the INVITATION EMAIL from being sent to you, or from being received into your EMAIL INBOX. It could be a BROWSER or PLUGIN problem on my end. So, I just sent you another invitation using a different browser. If that doesn’t work, I don’t know what else to do.

          Do you have a SPAM BLOCKER on your email account? Also, did you UPGRADE your WordPress account for the LEAGUE OF BLOGGERS? Would that make any difference for inviting users?

          Let me know if you fail to receive my new invitation. I’m open to any suggestions if it doesn’t work again. I’m crossing my fingers…


        • Still didn’t get it. I have a spam blocker, but it didn’t stop your test email. Are you sending the invite with that same email account, or a different one?


        • I only have one email account. If you want, I can resend the invitation with your spam blocker turned off. Otherwise, I don’t know what else to do. The problem doesn’t appear to be on my end. Maybe, there’s a bug in the WordPress App.


        • I’ve checked my junk mail, and your email isn’t there either. Check the help section on WordPress to see if you are following the steps right. Maybe there’s a step you’ve missed.


        • I read and reread the help section on inviting users yesterday and today. The current invitation is pending with a status of “waiting,” and it has your correct username and email address. I don’t know what could have gone wrong because there’s only 3 steps involved: 1) enter the invitee’s username or email address, 2) select the desired role for the invitee (i.e. AUTHOR), and 3) press the SEND button. Isn’t that what you did for the League of Bloggers?


        • Yeah, that’s what I did.
          Whenever I’ve had a problem in the past with WordPress, I type in the issue I’m having and someone usually answers within a day. WordPress is very glitchy. Why don’t I tell them that I’m not receiving your invite and see what they say. It may be a glitch.


Comments are closed.