Two Democratic senators have introduced a bill they say is aimed to overrule the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision and force Christian business owners to pay for abortion drugs.
Anti-life Senators Patty Murray of Washington and Mark Udall of Colorado have created what they titled the “Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act.” Abortionists like Planned Parenthood have already praised the bill.
“After five justices decided last week that an employer’s personal views can interfere with women’s access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong,” Murray said in a statement yesterday. “This bicameral legislation will ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to health care, period.”
“As the nation’s leading advocate for women’s reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood Action Fund is committed to making sure women can get the no-copay birth control benefit that we and others fought so hard to pass and protect,” Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards proclaimed. “No woman should lose access to birth control because her boss doesn’t approve of it.”
None of the Senators nor any of the groups speaking out in favor of the bill have mentioned that the Court’s decision only applies to 4 of the 20 contraceptives connected to the Affordable Care Act. This means that no women working for these companies is denied contraception.
The Supreme Court’s ruling that a Massachusetts law declaring a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics was unconstitutional is having reach far beyond the Bay State.
A number of cities around the country are now halting enforcement of buffer zone laws because they do not believe the laws will stand up to the new standard set by the Court.
Burlington, Vermont, which has a similar 35-foot buffer zone law on the books, is suspending enforcement of the law. The city’s attorney said that she will work with the city council to eliminate the prohibition from the law while still protecting the entrances and exits of the clinics.
Other cities suspending buffer zone laws include Portland, Oregon and Madison, Wisconsin.
“The government cannot gag speech just because it doesn’t reflect the government’s views or the views of abortionists,” Alliance Defending Freedom’s Matt Bowman stated. “The Supreme Court has now made it even more clear that public streets and sidewalks are places where free speech is highly protected.”
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Christian college is not required to cover emergency contraceptives it believes causes abortions.
The court ruled 6-3 to allow Wheaton College temporary relief from the birth control mandate while the case makes it’s way through the lower courts. The court’s three liberal women justices objected to the injunction, saying that a Christian school should be forced to provide abortion-inducing drugs.
The school had been required under the health care mandate to sign forms allowing a third party to provide the abortion drugs. The school says that permitting someone else to provide the service inherently makes them complicit in allow the abortion drugs to be given to end the lives of babies.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor, writing for the three liberal justices in their dissent, said making Christians pay for abortions is not a “substantial” burden on their religious beliefs.
“Let me be absolutely clear: I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs. But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened — no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be — does not make it so,” she wrote.
In a major victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that “closely-held” for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in the Affordable Care Act to provide free contraceptive coverage.
The court’s decision came in the case of Hobby Lobby, the company that also owns the Mardel Christian Stores chain. The owners of the company said the health care law forced them to violate their religious faith by providing drugs that can induce abortions.
The challenge was the first major case related to the President’s signature law in the last two years.
The Supreme Court held that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the rights of for-profit businesses if they are run on a basic of religious principles. However, the Court’s ruling noted it was specifically applied only to the health care law and did not automatically mean other instances of religious issues and health care would be invalid.
The Obama administration had argued that the case was not really about birth control but rather a way that for-profit businesses could challenge other laws based on religious rights.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Massachusetts law requiring a 35 foot zone around abortion clinics where pro-life protesters could not speak to women seeking an abortion is unconstitutional.
Court observers were surprised to see the law was struck down in a unanimous ruling.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that authorities have less intrusive ways to deal with problems outside abortion clinics without violating the free speech rights of pro-life activists.
The decision, while unanimous, was not without some dissent. The chief justice joined with the court’s four liberal justices on a narrow ruling that this particular law was unconstitutional. The court’s four conservative justices issued briefs expressing concerns.
Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the majority opinion for continuing “this court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents.”
The Massachusetts law replaced an earlier law that created a “six foot bubble” around unwilling listeners if they were within 18 feet of the clinic. The “floating zone” was modeled after a Colorado law that has been upheld in the past by the Court.
The Supreme Court declined in a 7-2 decision to hear the appeal of a school district that held their graduation ceremonies inside a church building, allowing a lower court ruling to stand that holding such an event inside a church is unconstitutional.
The anti-Christian group Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit in 1990 against the Elmbrook, Wisconsin School District which had been holding their graduation ceremonies inside a non-denominational church facility. The anti-Christianists said the mere existence of Christian symbols in the building meant the school was promoting Christianity over all other religions.
While multiple lower courts ruled in favor of the school district, the anti-Christian group continued to file appeals until the full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a three-judge 7th Circuit panel and ruled in their favor. The Supreme Court before their formal refusal to hear the case shelved the case for two years.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority. Justice Scalia wrote that while a school district may have to act to soothe angry people, it doesn’t mean it’s the constitution’s job to soothe hurt feelings. The justices also noted the flawed 7th Circuit ruling was in conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway, which stated that mere offense does not equate to coercion.
A recent Supreme Court ruling that Christian prayer was legal at government meetings is having a trickle-down effect in government operations.
Stanley Grot, clerk for Shelby Township, Michigan, has added the phrase “so help me God” to the end of all oaths of office for the township. Grot said that while the phrase is officially included in the oath, an office holder can refuse to say the phrase if they wish to refuse.
“We are a nation built on Judeo-Christian values and political correctness should not play a role in invoking the Lord’s name,” Grot said. “We should honor the nation’s traditions and never compromise on our principles. America is, after all, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
The Detroit News reported the first person sworn in after the oath was changed had no problem saying the phrase.
“My faith in Jesus Christ and God is very important to me,” Laura White said. “And as a public servant, I have no problem adding that onto my oath.”
A federal court has ruled the Department of Health and Human Services cannot enforce the birth control mandate on two Christian colleges.
The court ruled Dordt College in Iowa and Cornerstone University in Michigan are exempt from the mandate while their appeals work their way through the federal court system.
U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett said in his ruling that to impose the mandate would likely cause “irreparable harm” to the colleges because it would be “to the detriment of their religious exercise.” He said the colleges are likely to succeed in their cases on the merits and that if the courts rule against the colleges the worst that can happen is that it would take a few more months to implement the policy.
Judge Bennett said that he is also delaying a ruling in the case because of the similar cases before the Supreme Court with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods. He said the decision of the court will likely have a direct impact on the case and his ruling.
A ruling from the court is expected later this summer.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, who is defending the colleges, said the decision was sound because Christian colleges should have the right to behave according to their religious convictions.
In what’s being hailed as a victory in the battle to defend Americans’ religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that it is Constitutional for government meetings to have a prayer spoken at the opening of the gathering.
The decision was specifically praised for the very clear response to the issue.
“Even if [the decision] did uphold prayer in public legislative sessions, I wasn’t sure how clear that would be. This is crystal clear,” Rev. Rob Schenck told the Christian Post. “I would say, from reading the opinion, this is going to give very clear guidance in the future and it’s going to frustrate a lot of people who will attempt to get prayer at legislative sessions or any kind of public gathering shut down.”
The court’s five conservative justices said the prayers at the opening of the meetings were for the participants in the meeting and not for the general public.
Those who have tried to eliminate Christianity from public life were expectedly upset with the court’s decision. Rob Boston of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the court’s ruling upholding religious freedom was “out of step with the realties of modern-day America.”
“The majority opinion makes it clear that legislative prayer often isn’t coercive because the adults being exposed to it have options, such as leaving the room,” Boston said before making a threat. “So, if any misguided religious right activists out there is thinking this decision opens the door for a return of official school prayer, they can forget it.”
A major Supreme Court decision is going to be heard Tuesday regarding the Constitutionality of police searching cell phones when someone is arrested.
Multiple court cases have resulted in differing decisions in lower courts requiring the Supreme Court’s involvement. Supporters of law enforcement say that a cell phone is no different than anything found in the pockets of a suspect when arrested and police should be able to look through it.
However, privacy advocates say that today’s smartphones are similar to computers in their operation and memory storage. Police without a warrant cannot search computers and privacy advocates say cell phones should gain the same protection.
A criminal law specialist with New York University School of Law said that the cases will put to the test laws that were written before anyone would have known about the digital age.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by June.
