John Boehner, Justice Scalia, and Contraception Insurance

John Boehner is arguing that the government’s policy requiring religious hospitals and universities to include contraception coverage in their insurance violates the First Amendment. This is plainly wrong. The government’s policy covers all hospitals and universities, not just religious hospitals and universities. Accordingly, the policy is part of a generally applicable statute that happens to hit religion. According to the Court, the refusal to create an exemption is not a constitutional violation.

In my view, however, it should be unconstitutional. The chief constitutional culprit is Justice Scalia. He wrote the opinion providing thick constitutional cover for Obama’s contraception policy. Perhaps the Republicans will get together and hang their favorite justice in effigy for failing to respect religious freedom. Don’t hold your breath.

Comments

[Jimbino]

The whole idea of the RC church's having a monopoly on ethics and morality is getting pretty tiresome.

Libertarian and atheist, I consider my ethics and morality superior to that of the RC church, and I think insurance, (like religion of any kind to be stupid, returning as it does some 50% on the premium dollar. It is a strict violation of my "religious" beliefs to support gummint stupidity.

Am I entitled to be exempt from all gummint policies that tax me to support its stupidity?

[Robert]

Hear hear, Steve. It's high time Scalia was called out for the ersatz religion-respecter he is. After having seen him, in person, mocking the Babaluyai church by engaging in a Desi Arnez impersonation back in the late 1990s, I've wondered how he manages to pass himself off among religious 'conservatives' as their ally.