Kamala Harris Against Corporate Religious Claims

    December 1, 2013
    Lacy Langley
    Comments are off for this post.

Attorney General Kamala Harris is in the middle of the battle between corporations and their religious freedoms, and the administration and its Affordable Care act. She previously filed a request for the Supreme Court to review whether for-profit businesses can deny coverage for contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The cases of such businesses as Hobby Lobby, a biblically-founded family business, could have a huge impact on the course in which Obamacare continues to go.

Approximately 40 companies have sued, according to Fox News, stating that covering all or even some forms of birth control would violate their religious freedom rights. The issue has completely divided the lower courts, and caused a huge bump in the road for the new healthcare law. A decision could be made as early as Tuesday after closed-door meetings between the justices take place to decide whether or not to take on the controversial topic.

Should they decide to move forward with it, arguments could begin as early as March with a decision being made in June.

The Obama administration is worried that the victory for businesses like Hobby Lobby, could be used as “a sword used to deny employees of for-profit commercial enterprises the benefits and protections of generally applicable laws.” Kamala Harris has been a major voice in the fight against employers who claim religious freedom violations in the new Affordable Care Act. She to Twitter last week to express her disdain for the situation.

Four years ago, the Supreme Court expanded the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to enable corporations to invoke the same rights as individuals in religious freedom matters. Time will tell if that argument can stand up against the Obama administration.

Image via wikimedia commons

  • Carl Rohbock

    I find it challenging when individuals within our government selectively choose to challenge rights being expressed by others. This is the second example that I’m aware of the executive branch choosing to not uphold sustain the law but rather challenge it in a manner that side steps the people.

  • Dick S.

    It is disingenuous to characterize a women is denied access to health care by an employer who objects to abortions. As I see it, a woman has access to an abortion but not the funds from her employer to pay for it. If the government wants to allow abortions it should fund it from the general fund or our socialist neighbors should pay for the clinics themselves. Freedom of choice should be universal.