WASHINGTON U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared sharply divided Tuesday over whether Hobby Lobby and other family-owned businesses should have to pay for health insurance coverage that includes contraceptive methods objectionable to the owners.
Some of the courts conservatives said the government was effectively requiring Hobby Lobby to pay for abortions, since the companys owners David Green and his family, of Oklahoma City believe thats the effect that four of the contraceptives can have.
The three female justices, who constitute the majority of the courts liberal wing, aggressively pushed the point that a victory for Hobby Lobby a nationwide chain of arts-and-crafts stores would mean for-profit companies could raise religious objections to vaccinations, blood transfusions and other medical procedures.
A majority of the nine justices appeared to accept the proposition that for-profit companies could bring a claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That is a threshold question in the case, and the governments attorney, Solicitor General Donald Verrelli Jr., argued that the Supreme Court has never given a for-profit company a religious exemption from a federal law.
Attorney Paul Clement, a former solicitor general who argued Tuesday for Hobby Lobby and the two other companies involved in the case, said Congress intended to protect the religious beliefs of all including for-profit corporations when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993.
Oral arguments are not always a reliable barometer of how the court may ultimately rule because justices try to test the positions of both sides. However, on Tuesday, the courts liberal and conservative wings telegraphed major differences in how they were approaching the issues, suggesting that the decision, expected before the courts term ends in June, could come on a close vote.
For complete article: http://newsok.com/u.s.-supreme-court-justices-hear-hobby-lobby-arguments/article/3946880
Some of the courts conservatives said the government was effectively requiring Hobby Lobby to pay for abortions, since the companys owners David Green and his family, of Oklahoma City believe thats the effect that four of the contraceptives can have.
The three female justices, who constitute the majority of the courts liberal wing, aggressively pushed the point that a victory for Hobby Lobby a nationwide chain of arts-and-crafts stores would mean for-profit companies could raise religious objections to vaccinations, blood transfusions and other medical procedures.
A majority of the nine justices appeared to accept the proposition that for-profit companies could bring a claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That is a threshold question in the case, and the governments attorney, Solicitor General Donald Verrelli Jr., argued that the Supreme Court has never given a for-profit company a religious exemption from a federal law.
Attorney Paul Clement, a former solicitor general who argued Tuesday for Hobby Lobby and the two other companies involved in the case, said Congress intended to protect the religious beliefs of all including for-profit corporations when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993.
Oral arguments are not always a reliable barometer of how the court may ultimately rule because justices try to test the positions of both sides. However, on Tuesday, the courts liberal and conservative wings telegraphed major differences in how they were approaching the issues, suggesting that the decision, expected before the courts term ends in June, could come on a close vote.
For complete article: http://newsok.com/u.s.-supreme-court-justices-hear-hobby-lobby-arguments/article/3946880
