THE SUPREMES WILL SING – The Supreme Court is about to hand down a decision that could have serious implications in the battle between religious liberty and the implied right to health-care coverage.  From National Journal:

The Supreme Court won't strike down Obamacare's contraception mandate, but a ruling for the law's challengers could still render the policy toothless for millions of women.

The justices are set to rule any day now in a challenge to the birth-control mandate, and any decision against the policy would have ripple effects far beyond the two companies that filed this lawsuit. Just how far, however, depends on how broadly the Court rules—and it has plenty of options.

No matter what happens, the Court won't strike down the entire mandate. The two companies that brought their challenge to the Supreme Court—Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties—haven't asked the justices to ax the entire policy.

The most sweeping option is a broad First Amendment proclamation that all corporations have a fundamental right to exercise religion, in this case by refusing to cover birth control in their employees' health care plans. This outcome would be almost a sequel to the Citizens United case on campaign finance laws and free speech. It would probably open the door for any company to challenge a slew of state or federal regulations, and would allow any corporation to avoid the contraception mandate—potentially affecting millions of women.

(Many employers, however, particularly large companies, probably wouldn't want to cut contraception coverage. It's a popular benefit and far cheaper than covering a pregnancy or a baby.)

But a sweeping First Amendment ruling might not be the most likely option, based on the questions Justice Anthony Kennedy asked during oral arguments and Chief Justice John Roberts's general preference for narrower decisions. The Court could easily go smaller if it sides with Hobby Lobby.

COMMENT:  Read the whole piece.  It's a very good analysis.  This is a very complicated issue, with merit on both sides, and plenty of demagogues on both sides as well.  I'd imagine the Court will look for a way to permit free exercise of religious conscience by those who do not wish to cover certain procedures, but at the same time insist that women receive this coverage, if they wish it, in some manner.  Not easy stuff.

June 30, 2014