The Contraceptive Mandate Controversy and the Future of Religious Accommodations in the United States: A Study of the us Supreme Court Case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

Elisa Chieregato
{"title":"The Contraceptive Mandate Controversy and the Future of Religious Accommodations in the United States: A Study of the us Supreme Court Case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)","authors":"Elisa Chieregato","doi":"10.1163/18710328-12341283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With its decision in the Hobby Lobby case, the us Supreme Court adjudicated over the “Contraceptive Mandate”, a regulation of the Healthcare Reform that aroused religious concerns as it requires companies offering health insurance to its employees to cover contraceptives. Recognizing for the first time that private companies are (legal) “persons” exercising religion, the Court declared that the Mandate violates their religious freedom and exempted them from covering contraceptives. The article argues that the restrictive interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (rfra) here proposed, by granting strong protection to corporations’ religious claims over their employees’ interest in equal access to health care, may lead to the proliferation of religious accommodations far beyond this controversy. Yet, the article concludes that this dangerous scenario can be limited by taking into consideration the impact of religious accommodations on third parties’ rights, as imposed by an interpretation of rfra consistent with the Establishment Clause.","PeriodicalId":168375,"journal":{"name":"Religion and Human Rights","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion and Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-12341283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

With its decision in the Hobby Lobby case, the us Supreme Court adjudicated over the “Contraceptive Mandate”, a regulation of the Healthcare Reform that aroused religious concerns as it requires companies offering health insurance to its employees to cover contraceptives. Recognizing for the first time that private companies are (legal) “persons” exercising religion, the Court declared that the Mandate violates their religious freedom and exempted them from covering contraceptives. The article argues that the restrictive interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (rfra) here proposed, by granting strong protection to corporations’ religious claims over their employees’ interest in equal access to health care, may lead to the proliferation of religious accommodations far beyond this controversy. Yet, the article concludes that this dangerous scenario can be limited by taking into consideration the impact of religious accommodations on third parties’ rights, as imposed by an interpretation of rfra consistent with the Establishment Clause.
避孕强制令争议与美国宗教住宿的未来——以美国最高法院Burwell诉Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.一案为例(2014)
美国最高法院在Hobby Lobby一案中做出的裁决,是对“避孕强制令”(contraception Mandate)的裁决。这是医疗改革(Healthcare Reform)中的一项规定,因要求企业为其员工提供医疗保险,以涵盖避孕费用,而引起了宗教方面的担忧。法院第一次承认私营公司是行使宗教信仰的(合法)“人”,宣布《委任令》侵犯了他们的宗教自由,并豁免他们支付避孕药具。文章认为,本文提出的对《恢复宗教自由法案》(rfra)的限制性解释,通过对公司对其雇员平等获得医疗保健的利益的宗教主张给予强有力的保护,可能导致宗教住宿的扩散,远远超出了这一争议。然而,该条的结论是,考虑到宗教安排对第三方权利的影响,可以限制这种危险的情况,因为对rfra的解释与政教分离条款相一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信