SCOTUS SPEAKS #1

Amended 8:00 am

Wow, today is July 1; six months or one half of the year has passed. Finally June the month of momentous Supreme Court Decisions is in the past.

Perhaps as lay persons we should review and comment on the individual decisions separately. There are two that in an indirect manner involve the “right of life” issue.

The Court has just ruled by 5:4 that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception violated a federal law protecting religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision on Monday.

This extends the exemption permitted religious organizations.

The provisions of the ACA mandating birth control provisions in all new health care policies is again a well-intentioned desire with the wrong implementation.

Instead the carriers should be required to make available for those who want or even all women in the potential pregnancy age groups as an “add on” at a very small additional premium the contraceptive coverage that they must now include. Of course the powers that be must make sure that the base premiums reflect the absence of that coverage.

Certainly a 90 year old man may be flattered but he does not need contraceptive coverage. There are certain elective surgical procedures that must be covered.

Although there are certain surgical birth control procedures available to men that must be covered, the possibility of a 90 year old male needing contraceptive coverage, flattering as it may be, is zero.

However, I must admit that anything may become a fact when our politicians write the laws. That is why we need the courts and especially SCOTUS to determine the constitutional validity of laws written by governments at all levels.  

Unfortunately, when Judges are elected or politically appointed we have no control over their capabilities. But the system is better than any alternative.

 

With these provisions in consideration employers would now be required to offer policies that have an optional birth control provision?

The other vaguely related decision was by a unanimous vote the declaring of a Massachusetts law that barred protests, counseling and other speech near abortion clinics as unconstitutional.

The 2007 Massachusetts law created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion who said they sought to have quiet conversations with women entering clinics

But Chief Justice Roberts said the state’s concerns could be addressed in other ways, including through laws concerning harassment, intimidation and obstruction. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion, the other judges wrote separate concurring opinions.

Once again an admirable attempt to protect the rights and privacy of individuals from abuse and harassment by others was wrongly enacted.

Chief Justice Roberts has indicated a possible constitutional road to achieve that goal. All states legislatures should act on his suggestion.

We will note the other decisions as the week progresses.