Deeply Conservative, Sexist Judge Rules Against Religious Employers, Affirms Right To Birth Control

[Panich52]

ThinkProgress

Deeply Conservative Judge Rules Against Religious Employers, Affirms Right To Birth Control

Judge Jerry Smith is a deeply conservative judge. He once voted to allow a man to be executed despite the fact that the man’s lawyer slept through much of his trial. He’s a reliable vote against abortion rights. And he once described feminists as a “gaggle of outcasts, misfits and rejects.”

So when Judge Smith writes an opinion protecting women’s access to birth control, even when their employer objects to contraception on religious grounds, that’s a very big deal.

East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell is a consolidated batch of cases, handed down on Monday, involving religious employers who object to some or all forms of birth control. These employers are entitled to an accommodation exempting them from federal rules requiring them to offer birth control coverage to their employees. Most of them may invoke this accommodation simply by filling out a form or otherwise informing the federal government of their objection and naming the company that administers their employer health plan. At this point, the government works separately with that company to ensure that the religious employer’s workers receive contraception coverage through a separate health plan.

Several lawsuits are working their way through the federal courts which raise the same legal argument at issue here. In essence, the employers claim that filling out the form that exempts them from having to provide birth control makes them complicit in their employee’s eventual decision to use contraception, and so the government cannot require them to fill out this form. So far, every single federal appeals court to consider this question has sided with the Obama administration and against religious employers who object to this accommodation.

More
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/22/3672613/right-birth-control-just-won-significant-victory-date-post-hobby-lobby-case/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&elq=02b668d074bf475a926fd64d1544c683&elqCampaignId=3185&elqaid=26029&elqat=1&elqTrackId=d2032057ef6746c5b56fb54a40b1e95a

[elleng]

1. Smith makes short work of the claim that the fill-out-a-form accommodation burdens religious liberty

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides that the federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” except in limited circumstances. Applying this language, Smith writes in a unanimous opinion for a three-judge panel that “[t]he plaintiffs must show that the challenged regulations substantially burden their religious exercise, but they have not done so.”
The crux of Smith’s analysis is that the plaintiffs in these cases object to birth control, but nothing in the law requires these plaintiffs to do anything whatsoever involving birth control. Rather, their only obligation, if they do not wish to cover birth control, is to fill out a form or send a brief letter to the federal government — and neither of those things are contraception.

“Although the plaintiffs have identified several acts that offend their religious beliefs, the acts they are required to perform do not include providing or facilitating access to contraceptives,” Smith explains. “Instead, the acts that violate their faith are those of third parties.” Specifically, the plaintiffs object to the federal government working with an insurance administrator to provide contraception to certain workers. But the law does not “entitle them to block third parties from engaging in conduct with which they disagree.”

Indeed, Smith writes, if the plaintiffs in these cases were to prevail, it could lead to absurd challenges to basic government functions. “Perhaps an applicant for Social Security disability benefits disapproves of working on Sundays and is unwilling to assist others in doing so,” Smith explains. “He could challenge a requirement that he use a form to apply because the Social Security Administration might process it on a Sunday. Or maybe a pacifist refuses to complete a form to indicate his beliefs because that information would enable the Selective Service to locate eligible draftees more quickly. The possibilities are endless, but we doubt Congress, in enacting RFRA, intended for them to be.”

[Novara]

2. Well, duh

How filling out a goddamn form is a "substantial burden to religious freedom" is beyond all logic or sense.

[pogglethrope]

3. In no way did the three-judge panel “affirm [a] right to birth control.”

All it ruled is that employers who want an exemption from providing health plans that cover birth control must fill out a form if they want the exemption. The employers must have a bad case of the stupids if they think they can be exempted without filling out the required form.

In addition, no one seems to be saying that women don’t have a right to birth control, just that some employers should be exempt from paying for their employees’ birth control -- and, presumably, birth control for their employee’s families.

Stuff like this annoys the hell out of me. It's a waste of taxpayer money to pay federal judges' salaries to deal with crap like this.