Supreme Court hears arguments on challenges to health-care reforms

LAST WEEK, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases related to the controversial contraception mandate that has caused bitterness and lawsuits between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration, writes Michael Sean Winters. The two plaintiffs in the case, however, were not Catholic, but for-profit businesses, the Hobby Lobby craft-store chain and a wood-making firm, owned by Evangelical Protestants. The owners do not object to all forms of contraception, but only to those methods they consider abortifacients, such as the popular IUD and certain “morning-after” pills.

Liberal justices of the Supreme Court grilled the attorney for the companies, challenging him to defend the proposition that a ­corporation can exercise religion and, therefore, be entitled to an exemption under the US Constitution’s guarantee of “free exercise of religion”. They also asked if permitting the companies to deny coverage of certain forms of contraception would not unduly burden female employees who might not share the owners’ moral or religious beliefs.

Finally, the justices wondered what other religious objections other employers might raise to other laws of which they did not approve. If the court sided with the plaintiffs, Justice Ruth Ginsberg said, they were inviting a “parade of horribles” as companies owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses, say, might object to covering blood transfusions.

Donald Verrilli, solicitor general for the Government, received a similarly rough set of questions from the court’s four more conservative justices. Mr Verrilli was asked why the Government did not pay for the coverage itself if it thought there was such a compelling interest in providing free contraception that the Government was willing to burden the religious freedom of the companies. The justices also asked Mr Verrilli why corporations, which enjoy other First Amendment rights such as free speech, should not be entitled to mount a free exercise of religion claim as well.

Oral arguments are rarely a good indicator of how the court will decide a given case. On the sharply divided court, Justice Anthony Kennedy is considered the critical swing vote. The court’s ruling is expected before the term ends in June.