You will be forced to care. Even if it violates your conscience or religious beliefs.
That’s the message Joe Biden is sending the voters as he promises to undo the decision of the Supreme Court that grants individuals and corporations exemptions from covering contraceptives with their insurance if it violates their beliefs.
Congress could add the mandate back and then it would take another 10 years of going through the courts for any challenge to be successful. And that’s assuming there’s still a sane Supreme Court.
This is liberal lawfare writ large and they hope to eventually exhaust the opposition or simply bury them.
“As disappointing as the Supreme Court’s ruling is, there is a clear path to fixing it: electing a new President who will end Donald Trump’s ceaseless attempts to gut every aspect of the Affordable Care Act,” Biden said in a statement. “If I am elected, I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the Hobby Lobby ruling: providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions.”
Why this war on believers? It’s not so much what they believe that bothers liberals, it’s that their thinking does not conform to the left’s worldview. There are to be no independent thinkers in transformed America and liberals will use the law — and street thugs — to enforce that idea.
Liberals still don’t have a clue why Obama’s “exemptions” were resisted. Basically, a church or religious institution could declare itself exempt from the contraceptive mandate and allow insurers or “third-party administrators” to pay for the offending mandate.
But the Little Sisters of the Poor and other groups maintain that the “exemption” was a fig leaf. It still forced them to acknowledge the right to contraceptive coverage, thus making them complicit in the sin.
Obama and the left never understood people of such deep and profound conscience. They thought they had given the sisters and others an “out” from the moral quagmire they created with the mandate in the first place. The Little Sisters of the Poor saw through this transparent attempt to give them a moral pass on their conscience and they flatly refused it.
That the decision was 7-2 is significant. Justices Kagan and Breyer joined the majority as Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a decision that was narrow enough for those liberals but broad enough to cover the objections of the plaintiffs.
It’s remarkable that the two pragmatist liberal justices, justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined that opinion. For Breyer and Kagan to take this step suggests that they may have been trying to show that they’re willing to cross traditional liberal lines to avoid a 5-4 decision — hence protecting the court from the perception of deep ideological division. The move by Breyer and Kagan should be juxtaposed with two other rulings this term: the Louisiana abortion case, where Chief Justice John Roberts crossed ideological lines, and the LGBTQ discrimination case, where Justice Neil Gorsuch also did so.
Predictability, the left is ganging up on Breyer and Kagan — just as the right skewered the “traitors” Roberts and Gorsuch. But this case lends itself more to a direct interpretation of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. If the justices had bypassed the Constitution and justified the mandate based solely on case law, this decision would not have turned out the way it did.
Apparently, the Constitution still has its uses after all.