Skip to main content

View Diary: In Hobby Lobby, Supremes grant religious objection rights to for-profit corporations. (340 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Simply Incorrect (0+ / 0-)

    The RFRA (passed in 1993) was found, by the Supreme Court, not to apply to states in City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997. The RFRA was subsequently amended in 2003 to explicitly indicate it applied only at the Federal level.

    So, it was only when the Federal Government mandated "morning after" contraceptives and substantial penalties for employers who didn't provide conforming coverage that the RFRA came into play. It simply didn't apply to any of the state laws you mention. As well, few states had employer mandates with substantial penalties so an employer could just elect not to make insurance available to their employees.

    So, no, it's not "just because it was Obama".

    •  Nobody asserted religious freedom objections (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Under state constitutions, either, nor any claims between the enactment of coverage mandates and Employment Div v. Smith that RFRA was to overturn. You also had the four year window between RFRA and Boerne.  You're right about the basis for federal court jurisdiction in this lawsuit (it being a federal law), but I was making the broader, non-legal point about why contraception is controversial all of a sudden.  I'm perfectly familiar with RFRA, and I repeat: nobody cared before Obama.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:16:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site