老澳门开奖结果

WASHINGTON 鈥� The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear cases brought by employers who object for religious reasons to providing contraception coverage for their employees 鈥� and believe it is a burden on their religious beliefs to fill out a form stating their objection so that the insurance companies can provide the coverage.

The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance plans to include contraception coverage. However, the law provides an out to certain employers who believe contraception is contrary to their religion, allowing them to fill out a notifying the insurance company or government that they have religious objections to having contraception included in their employees鈥� health plans. Once notified, by the government or employer, the insurer provides the coverage directly to the employees.

The employers who have brought these cases 鈥� a group of religiously-affiliated non-profits 鈥� argue they should not have to fill out the form because doing so will facilitate their employees getting the contraception access to which they object. The court鈥檚 decision in the case will apply not only to religiously-affiliated non-profit groups, but to closely-held profit companies as well.

鈥淲e fight every day to protect the constitutional right to freedom of religion, but that right does not extend to imposing your beliefs on others and discriminating against them,鈥� said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the 老澳门开奖结果. 鈥淚f the Court rules in favor of the employers in these cases, women will lose a benefit guaranteed by law and will literally be paying for their employers鈥� beliefs.鈥�

In 2012, the for-profit company, Hobby Lobby, challenged the Affordable Care Act, claiming that requiring it to include contraception in its healthcare violated its owner鈥檚 religious liberty under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In June 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Hobby Lobby鈥檚 favor, noting that the government had a less restrictive alternative available 鈥� the accommodation for religiously affiliated non-profit companies that objected to providing contraception coverage. In 2015, the federal government extended the accommodation to closely held for-profits. The court鈥檚 decision could affect access to contraception coverage for countless women.

Leading up to today鈥檚 case, seven of eight appeals courts (D.C., 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th) had ruled that filling out a form as required by the accommodation was not a substantial burden on the employer鈥檚 religious beliefs. Only one appeals court 鈥� the 8th circuit 鈥揾as held the contrary.

More information on the cases challenging the federal contraceptive coverage mandate is available at:
aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/challenges-federal-contraceptive-coverage-rule

Additional information about how claims of religious freedom are being used to discriminate can be found at: /issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate