One of the major news items this week was the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that a privately (or closely) held corporation could use religious reasons to opt out of providing birth control as part of its health insurance package.
The decision has kicked up a predictable fuss, and hits some of the topics covered in 2305's sections on civil liberties and specifically religious liberty - where we dig into the court's decisions regarding the establishment and free exercise clauses. The case mostly hits on the impact on 1993's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as the status of corporations under the Bill of Rights.
I'll post commentary about these separately, but as always ScotusBlog is the go to place for facts about the case itself.
- Click here for their post on the case.
Here is the basic decision the court made: As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations
promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring
employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to
contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
2305 students should note the role the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has played in establishing what types of accommodations governments have to make to people based on religious viewpoints.
Here are a few links related to RFRA:
- Wikipedia: RFRA.
- What is RFRA and why do we care?
- The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and complicity in sin.
- DOJ: RFRA.
