The Contraceptive Mandate Controversy and the Future of Religious Accommodations in the United States: A Study of the us Supreme Court Case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)
With its decision in the Hobby Lobby case, the us Supreme Court adjudicated over the “Contraceptive Mandate”, a regulation of the Healthcare Reform that aroused religious concerns as it requires companies offering health insurance to its employees to cover contraceptives. Recognizing for the first t...
| Published in: | Religion and human rights |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill, Nijhoff
2015
|
| In: |
Religion and human rights
|
| Further subjects: | B
Religious Freedom
Contraceptive Mandate
Establishment Clause
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (rfra)
anti-discrimination law
employee rights
religious accommodation
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Summary: | With its decision in the Hobby Lobby case, the us Supreme Court adjudicated over the “Contraceptive Mandate”, a regulation of the Healthcare Reform that aroused religious concerns as it requires companies offering health insurance to its employees to cover contraceptives. Recognizing for the first time that private companies are (legal) “persons” exercising religion, the Court declared that the Mandate violates their religious freedom and exempted them from covering contraceptives. The article argues that the restrictive interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (rfra) here proposed, by granting strong protection to corporations’ religious claims over their employees’ interest in equal access to health care, may lead to the proliferation of religious accommodations far beyond this controversy. Yet, the article concludes that this dangerous scenario can be limited by taking into consideration the impact of religious accommodations on third parties’ rights, as imposed by an interpretation of rfra consistent with the Establishment Clause. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1871-0328 |
| Contains: | In: Religion and human rights
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/18710328-12341283 |