It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That's not the point. The ruling violates the 14th Amendment, specifically, the part about equal protection, no pun intended.
PPACA is not a State law. But there are possibilities for your case. Keep in mind however, it was the Federal Government that originally infringed. Very conflicting indeed.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It would certainly be a scary situation if the Supremes ruled that an employer could prohibit a legal act while away from the job. Of course it happens all the time anyway. Brandan Eich (sp?) was fired for donating $1000 bucks to a Proposition 8 group, not to mention the untold hundreds who have been fired for saying something goofy on Facebook or Twitter.
Congress' power under § 5, however, extends only to "enforc[ing]" the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has described this power as "remedial." The design of the Amendment and the text of § 5 are inconsistent with the suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been given the power "to enforce," not the power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation. Were it not so, what Congress would be enforcing would no longer be, in any meaningful sense, the "provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment]."
originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: windword
You won't find any constitutional reference in the syllabus. The ruling wasn't based on the constitution. It was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That's the document we need to change.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, WELL DONE!
Change RFRA, and the whole battle has to be fought on other grounds. It's not going to be changed in an election year, and considering that 21 years ago it passed both houses unanimously (except for three Senators) I'm not sure it will be changed in the near future.
In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen
Whatever, the fact is, women employed by religious nutz are being treated different than women who work for a non-religious nut, under this ruling. That violates the 14th Amendment. You okay with that?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).
At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,”42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries.
originally posted by: GAOTU789
What I find so fascinating about this ruling as a non affected, non US citizen is that it appears to me that the SC just gave a certain sector of corporations the right to hold religious beliefs. For me, that's the most intriguing thing that has occured.
They may have also set a legal precedent for the future for when an employee says...
"you can't do that."
When a decision gets made based around those beliefs.
The IRS and HHS gave a certain sector of corporations the right to hold religious beliefs through tax exemptions and insurance mandate exemptions. The IRS regulations were there before ACA.
Right. Those were corporations that were established to implement religious objectives and goals. These are businesses that are purely for profit.
Corporations are not people. Some of the people who authored the RFRA, that have been interviewed since the ruling, have said they are flabbergasted that SCOTUS applied the act to corporations. It wasn't authored with that intent, they say.