Support the Café
Search our site

Supreme Court lets Wheaton College deny birth control coverage

Supreme Court lets Wheaton College deny birth control coverage

It did not take long for Supreme Court to extend the logic of Monday’s Hobby Lobby ruling in strange ways. Yesterday it granted an injunction to Wheaton College of Wheaton, Illinois, an evangelical liberal arts college, so that it may deny contraceptive coverage to its employees. All three of the women who sit on the Supreme Court strongly objected to the unsigned order.


Washington Post:

The three female justices of the Supreme Court sharply rebuked their colleagues Thursday for siding with a Christian college in the latest battle over providing women with contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, saying the court was retreating from assurances offered only days ago.

In a short, unsigned opinion, the court said that Wheaton College in Illinois, at least temporarily, does not have to comply even with compromise provisions in the law that the college says still violate its religious beliefs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the action cast doubt on the very accommodation the court’s majority seemed to endorse Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which concerned businesses that objected to providing birth control that offends the owners’ beliefs.

What’s odd about the case is that Wheaton objects to both the birth control requirement and the requirement that the College inform its insurance carrier of that objection on religious grounds. If the carrier received the form stating the objection, then the carrier works out the coverage with the government. So instead, the court majority must write a letter to Federal Government who would then, presumably, notify the insurance carrier and work out alternative arrangements. This, it appears, is the “substantial burden” that the evangelical college objects to.

Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent:

Wheaton, for religious reasons, categorically opposes the provision of contraceptive services. The Government has given it a simple means to opt out of the contraceptive coverage mandate—and thus avoid any civil penalties for failing to provide contraceptive services—and a simple means to tell its third-party administrator of its claimed exemption.

Yet Wheaton maintains that taking these steps to avail itself of the accommodation would substantially burden its religious exercise.

She continues:

Let me be absolutely clear: I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs. But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened—no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be—does not make it so.

See also Religion Clause.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tgflux

Amazing that people who proclaim personal liberty are so ready to take it from other people.

“other people”?

Michael, you’re laboring under the illusion that anti-choice men (esp on SCOTUS!) consider women to BE “other people” to the full extent they themselves are.

JC Fisher

Michael Russell

Time to name that this is a full monte assault on women’s (and men’s too) freedom to make their own choices. I remember when birth control was illegal! The goal here is to restore the parts of the 1950s people remember fondly.

Amazing that people who proclaim personal liberty are so ready to take it from other people.

Michael Russell

Time to name that this is a full monte assault on women’s (and men’s too) freedom to make their own choices. I remember when birth control was illegal! The goal here is to restore the parts of the 1950s people remember fondly.

Amazing that people who proclaim personal liberty are so ready to take it from other people.

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café