A landmark decision on religious rights may be making its way to the bench of the Supreme Court soon. The upcoming health care law implementation has got many wondering about the constitutionality of some aspects within the legislation. In this case, religiously directed corporations have expressed concern over whether they can be forced to cover birth control of their employees. Many on both sides claim that this strikes at the heart of separation between church and state agencies.
The case will feature over 60 different religious companies who have filed suit over the constitutionality of the law. Specifically, they are targeting the mandate which requires them to cover birth control costs. So far, the 3rd court of appeals in Pennsylvania has upheld that this legal mandate is constitutional under United States law. But many across the country are waiting to hear the final word on the issue from the Supreme Court. Partisans on both sides are optimistic that they will prevail when this case is finally heard by the nine justices.
However, there is a slight twist to this story. In general, this case will be about whether corporations can legally enforce their religious perspective on the people that they hire. There have been cases where this concept has been tested in court on issues outside of the health care mandate. For instance, the 10th court of appeals in Colorado ruled that corporations can in fact exert their will like this on their employees. This creates an interesting split of opinions as the case heads towards the Supreme Court. Though the court can opt to not take the case, most insiders expect that they will consider it.
Previous decisions involving the 1st amendment and church separation have created a convoluted legal precedent. In most cases, the government cannot intervene and set law that dictates how religious thought should be expressed. But, people on both sides assert that the issue is much more complex than this. Currently, the court system does allow for the government to intervene on religious matters if it stands in the way of enacting government programs. This may help shed some light on how the Supreme Court will rule on this case, but many still aren't sure yet.
Finally, there are some who assert that the 1st amendment should not apply anyways in these cases. Many have pointed out that these corporations are not the equivalent of churches in the eye of the law. They were not established to propagate religious beliefs the way that churches have been. However, only time will tell if the Supreme Court tends to agree with this opinion.
