General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf the supreme court votes against the ACA can Jehovah's Witness bosses deny their employees
blood transfusions?
I don't see how they can rule anti contraception.
They would be opening a huge ugly box of worms.
Freddie
(9,258 posts)No psychiatric care, counseling, addiction treatment, meds for depression, ADHD, etc.
What's preventing employers from converting to the Christian Science faith? No obligation to provide any treatment but prayer!
warrant46
(2,205 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)mucifer
(23,521 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)mucifer
(23,521 posts)dem in texas
(2,673 posts)Let's see if they can screw the American people again. After the Citizens United ruling, I believe the Supremes are in the pocket of corporations.
longship
(40,416 posts)From SCOTUS case Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Click through for details, but Warren Burger set important guidelines on how First Amendment cases dealing with the establishment clause should go foreward.
The three criteria which Burger laid down in his decision are very important in all such cases where there are possible establishment clause entanglements.
Here it is, from Wiki:
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Entanglement Prong)
If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It is easy to defeat this challenge just on the first prong, as there is no way the arguments serve a secular purpose as virtually every argument against these ACA provisions are made in a religious context.
It also fails the second prong, although that's not obvious. One could argue either way, I suppose, but I do not think that the ACA opponents will deign tread down that path.
The third prong is fatal to the ACS opponents. There is no way that anybody could credibly argue that if SCOTUS rules for the ACA opponents that they would not be entangled with religion again and again, as other DU posts argue. Jehovah Witnesses and transfusions; Scientologists and mental health; Christian Scientists and reality!
I really hope this challenge fails. If it doesn't it might mean that Lemon is dead. That would be very bad.
Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-religion-20131125,0,2545589.story#ixzz2loR8nbVM