Trump ‘s prior effort to use a religious reason to deny abortion coverage to American women failed to get past the court…
A new effort seems destined to also fail…
Hope from conservatives that the Roberts court would nullify the momentous Women’s Right decision by chewing around the edges seems to not be in the cards…
At least not for now b y the Chief Justice Roberts..
Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed skepticism that the Trump administration can broadly allow employers to deny workers free birth control coverage, in a case that could inflame the nation’s culture wars ahead of the presidential election.
The court’s conservative majority was expected to side with the administration’s weakening of the contraceptive coverage requirement under Obamacare. However, Chief Justice John Roberts joined some of his liberal colleagues in questioning whether President Donald Trump’s rollback of the policy went too far. He and other justices still seemed baffled over how to resolve a fierce dispute over religious freedom and health care access that’s persisted for years.
Wednesday’s oral arguments, conducted by conference call, marked the high court’s third review of the contentious coverage requirement, and its first since Trump judicial picks Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench. At issue was a Trump policy allowing virtually any employer to claim a religious or moral exemption to providing free birth control to women.
Roberts asked Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who defended Trump’s rollback, whether the administration was interpreting religious freedom laws “too broadly.” Roberts and other justices, meanwhile, expressed frustration that the fight over birth control coverage hasn’t been resolved after nearly a decade of legal battles….
You’re are jumping to an unjustifiable conclusion.
The fact that there is some dispute apparently over A controversy involving a legal dispute over the power of an employer to use religious grounds to deny health care coverage for contraceptives as a bridge to insinuate that such would have any effect on a later ruling on Abortion is going way too far.
There are two totally different legal issues.
Could be…
I think the court HAS affirmed the right of abortion as a OVERALL axiom…
The piece and my comment took that as view to contrast the effort to try to get rid of that basic thru religion…
The court , some of us think, is annoyed at the efforts to back door have it change it’s basic support of a women’s right to have access to a means to control their bodies..
The two issues ARE in fact connected..
That’s my a view…
You’re entitled to your “view.”
My point is that just because Roberts expressed some reservations about using “religious freedom” as a basis to deny health coverage by employers for contraceptives has nothing to do with how he would rule on a frontal assault on Roe v Wade and the right to privacy which was one of its pillars.
And No the issues presented here are not related at all.