In a clear victory for religious liberty, the Supreme Court twice decided, by a 7-2 margin, that religious liberties still exist in this country. In the first case the Little Sisters of the Poor were vindicated by not having to violate their religious beliefs over the sanctity of life.
One member of the House said this,
Another HUGE win for religious liberties from the Supreme Court was announced earlier this morning.
In a 7-2 decision, the Court upheld that employers who had religious or moral objections to the Obamacare birth control mandate were, in fact, entitled to exemption from that rule.
This was a case involving the Little Sisters of the Poor, which is a Catholic ministry that serves the elderly poor. That organization has a religious objection the Obamacare contraceptive mandate that requires birth control to be covered by some employer-provided healthcare plans.
*** Friends, this case isn’t really about birth control. Instead it’s about whether the government can compel citizens to do something contrary to their religious or moral beliefs.
When you read today’s ruling, we’re reminded that YES, the government CAN! But to do so, it must first demonstrate a “compelling interest” that pertains to “only the gravest abuses” or “paramount interest.”
That’s the MINIMUM standard the government must meet to place a barrier on our religious liberties. And that flat-out didn’t happen here.
Using this case as an example, for the government to force Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptive coverage against its religious beliefs, “the Government would have to show that it would commit one of ‘the gravest abuses’ of its responsibilities if it did NOT furnish free contraceptives to all women,” Judge Alito wrote.
But the government didn’t come close to demonstrating that! There wasn’t even a contraceptive mandate in the Obamacare law. That came later, during a rule-making process.
If birth control subsidized by someone else was of such “paramount interest” to our nation, then why didn’t Obamacare provide coverage for ALL women? Why didn’t it make provisions for women who don’t receive a paycheck? Or those who are in-between jobs? Or those who are employed at companies that aren’t required to provide health insurance (e.g. less than 50 employees)? Why did it leave it to employers to subsidize, instead of taxpayers?
These are all rhetorical questions to prove that while the contraceptive mandate may be legal, it is not of such “paramount interest” that even the Little Women of the Poor shouldn’t be entitled to an exemption on religious grounds.
Thankfully, seven of the nine Supreme Court justices recognized that, and used this case as an opportunity to remind us that government must meet a VERY high threshold before infringing upon religious liberties.
That’s a good thing, regardless of your religion.
I wholeheartedly agree. There had been entirely too much infringement on our religious liberties during the previous administration.
In the second case, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Justice Alito writing the majority opinion (pdf.), applied the “ministerial exception” to prohibit employment discrimination claims by teachers at religious schools. This case arose from two elementary school teachers at the school.
Justice Alito who wrote the majority opinion noted,
In the cases now before us, we consider employment discrimination claims brought by two elementary school teachers at Catholic schools whose teaching responsibilities are similar to Perich’s. Although these teachers were not given the title of “minister” and have less religious training than Perich, we hold that their cases fall within the same rule that dictated our decision in Hosanna-Tabor. The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions.
This seems to be common sense. A private religious school must have the ability to select teachers who conform to the school’s religious formation views. Anything else would lead to chaos.