Supreme Court decides not to decide on birth control

downloadOn Monday, the Supreme Court sent back to the lower courts seven cases that that august body had consolidated into one big ol’ hairy birth control case. This says the court punted on the case, brought by various religious groups who fear the birth control portion of the American Care Act (Obamacare) violates their religious freedom.

You can read more here, at the SCOTUS blog.

This means a decision will come only after the 2016 Presidential elections.


Published by datingjesus

Just another one of God's children.

Join the Conversation


  1. Was it a punt? Or a field goal to tie the game moments before the end of regulation time?
    With his star player out of the lineup, Coach Roberts realizes gambling on a long shot is more risky than sudden death. So he opts for overtime.

    Now all we have to figure out is who won the coin toss?

    1. I didn’t see it as a punt. Maybe it should be the lower courts’ ball. (See what I did there?)

      1. I did. Smooth.

        But a majority of the lower courts already ruled. SCOTUS agreed to hear the combined cases, then, agreed not to hear the combined cases on the merits addressing the core issue: whether “sign here” creates a burden so onerous upon Religious Freedom™ Inc. that potential harm to third parties, (female employees in need of access to reproductive healthcare), should be discounted…less worthy of consideration.

        Roberts is playing for time. (Likely swing-vote Breyer as well.) And he’s counting on the government screwing the pooch in its ongoing desperate attempts to accommodate completely unreasonable demands from Religious Freedom™ Inc.. Because if anybody can screw up bad law even more, it’s the Obama Administration in Lame Duck Mode.

          1. (Missed a switch again. And me with my cool new specs and all. Well hell.)
            I think Roberts convinced Breyer and Kennedy that any other action, this election cycle, on such a highly politicalized issue that could uphold the lower courts’ rulings, (that favor the government’s position), would further damage the High Court’s image with Religious Freedom™ Inc.. A risk Roberts, and probably Breyer and Kennedy, are not willing to risk without the genius of Scalia at their disposal.

            Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

            It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
            Scalia 1990

            How to reconcile that with the demands of corporate religious practice is going to require some serious perversions of reason that only a Scalia could imagine.

            Meanwhile, the status quo, women suffering a harm recognized in existing law, remains in effect. A victory for the Religious Freedom Inc. position that those women should not be given equal consideration under such law. A victory, in fact, for the injustice ObamaCare® alleges it is designed to abate. Something the (in)Justices seem willing to accept.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: