The rule does not represent a repeal of the mandate; without a religious
case against contraception, the vast majority of employers would continue to be required to provide coverage.
Not exact matches
My guess is that it will be a difficult
case to argue
against the impact of the contraceptive coverage rule as anything but an «incidental effect» given it targets a market and there's no evidence that the rule is over or under inclusively fashioned as a pretext to target the religious beliefs of those opposed to
contraception.
There may be other reasons to warn
against the use of a condom in such a
case, or to advise total continence, but these will not be because of the Church's teaching on
contraception but for pastoral or simply prudential reasons — the risk, for example, of the condom not working.»
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood take their
case against mandated
contraception to the Supreme Court today.
In the Hobby Lobby
case, Gorsuch ruled in favor of the idea that corporations are people and
against women's access to
contraception.