Poll: Majority Opposes Employers Opting Out of Contraception Mandate

[DonViejo]

Source: NBC News/First Read

BY MARK MURRAY

Ahead of next week's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, a majority of Americans oppose allowing employers to opt out from the health-care law's contraception requirement, according to the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Fifty-three percent say employers should not be exempt from the requirement that their health plans offer birth control and other contraceptives even if they have religious objections, while 41 percent say they should be exempt.

-snip-

By a 49 percent-to-40 percent margin, seniors believe employers should be exempt from the contraception requirement. In contrast, those ages 18-34 say businesses shouldn't be exempt by a 62 percent-to-33 percent margin.

Seventy-two percent of Democrats say employers should not be exempt, versus 59 percent of Republican who say they should be. And among those who say religion is the single-most important thing in their lives, 70 percent say employers should be exempt. That’s compared with 79 percent of those who say religion isn’t important to them believe employers should not be exempt.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/poll-majority-opposes-employers-opting-out-contraception-mandate-n56906

---

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Well, the majority doesn't have a say in this country

only a minority with sufficient dollars to buy their own Supreme Court Justices, legislators and presidents.

[Yo_Mama]

7. Okay, that's really off

The court cases by employers saying they should be exempted are all based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed by Clinton and passed the House and Senate with massive majorities back in the 1990s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

Congress was rebutting the SC's tightening of the religiously-based exemptions from laws. Thus, if these claims should succeed, you cannot blame the SC, which took a different tack and then was overruled by Congress to favor an older SC line of precedents which force "strict scrutiny".

Smith (unemployment denied in Oregon to two persons fired for testing positive for a drug used in Indian ceremonies) was WRITTEN by Scalia, who pointed out that saying that religious freedom could give exemption to compliance with religiously neutral laws could open up a huge can of worms. So all the standard knee-jerk claims don't apply at all to these cases.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1213

Now Scalia may still be boiling, because in 1997 the SC struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as it applied to the states (the motivation for it originally). That case involved a Roman Catholic archdiocese, and the opinion striking down the RFRA as it applies to the states was written by Kennedy and joined by Scalia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores

Congress then tried to overrule the SC again by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act

As it now stands, the federal government has more restrictions on legislation and regulation that burden religious freedom than states (although a lot of states have passed similar measures). So if any of these challenges should succeed, it will be as a result of prolonged quarrels between the SC and Congress, with Congress limiting its own powers to pass religiously neutral legislation that impacts individual religious rights because it did not agree with SC decisions saying that it had those rights.

But the important thing is that there was strong majority support in both parties to roll back the SC decisions. Whatever we want to believe about those cases, if they are successful they will not be the result of minority rule. Any success would be the result of a legislative majority concerned about the rights of minorities!

[Iliyah]

2. It's my body and I have a choice

If people don't want it fine that's their decision. I keep hearing "Freedom" well where is it when it comes to a women's right to choose?

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Well, I'm one senior who says no way they should be exempt!

[mountain grammy]

4. That crazy, fringe 41% who ALWAYS vote...

And seniors, my generation of idiots. How very sad.

[Yo_Mama]

5. Well, but it's irrelevant to the issue

The law and regulations issued pursuant to the law say that the companies are not exempt. If the constitutional claim stands, majority opinion doesn't matter.

The claim is based on a law Congress passed in response to an earlier SC case which rejected a religious freedom claim, so blame Congress if the claim succeeds, not the SC.

[cosmicone]

6. this will set a bad precedent

For example, a lot of biologicals contain BSA from cows. Should a Hindu employer be allowed to not provide coverage for the biologicals?

I can't believe that it is even an issue.