They're swarming over the HHS rule with all sorts of arguments.
The Hobby Lobby case has different legal theory from the one in the OP. The O'Brien case held that paying premiums for a policy that allows the insured worker to purchase contraceptives is too remote to be considered a restriction on religion.
Hobby Lobby is different in that 1) it is self-insured so it directly, not remotely, pays for contraceptive services. {Hoobby Lobby does not object to and, in fact, pays for contraception) and 2) its lawsuit is directed specifically at two contraceptive medicines, the so-called morning-after pill and week-after pill, both of which, per the lawsuit, prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and therefore are abortifacients. The Government, stupidly in my opinion, is arguing that's not how it works.
So the suit contends the business (i.e., the business owner) is compelled directly to pay for an abortion to which he objects on religious grounds.
I'd be interested in seeing the decision because that is a more direct challenge to the rule. Still, I think the O'Brien holding that a corporation does not have freedom of religion will decide the issue. Now, if the plaintiff were an unincorporated sole proprietor, there might be a different outcome.
I've been following this but I'm not really knowledgeable of all the ins and outs of the various lawsuits.
= new reply since forum marked as read
