zubik v. burwell

There is a famous saying attributed to Judge Jerome Frank that "Justice is what the judge ate for breakfast." Basically, this
Zubik v. Burwell is one of the most closely watched cases of this term.
Burdensome and unworkable is the best description of the plan proposed by a group of religious nonprofit organizations and institutions to interfere with the ability of women in their health plans to access birth control, and undermine the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate.
This entire "war" is designed to impose a Christian morality on all citizens. Non-religious employees of quasi-religious organizations have no rights, according to the religious soldiers. If religious conservatives had their way, a Christian morality about abortion would be imposed on all women.
Imagine if your boss rifled through your purse to see if you were taking the pill. It may sound extreme, but that is what a Supreme Court case heard this session is going to decide: whether or not your employer has the right to interfere with your personal life when it comes to reproductive health.
In the oral arguments, the Justices and the lawyers debated different approaches that could be taken to develop a solution
Last week's oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, the consolidated cases about the application of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate to religious non-profits, ended with a zinger.
For me, an ordained United Methodist minister and occasional theology professor and preacher, I cannot help but think first of the women who struggle every day to keep themselves and their families healthy in lean financial times. The women for whom an unplanned pregnancy could mean a lost job, physical risk or devastating financial expense.
The justices asked hard questions in the sequel to 2014's Hobby Lobby case.