Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Two cases asserting free exercise of religion heard at Supreme Court
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 21:03:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <vu906d$1dt5c$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 23:03:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d93843ebdff4cd91d8eac2ef812c069a";
	logging-data="1504428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FmoWTqNEzuZXf0+3G10cYGouoR3qCB90="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GksU61lcrtiLjCcZAMOj0p94aZk=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 3754

Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra was a case I was worried about.
Once again, a plaintiff asserts free exercise of religion as a reason
not to do what the law requires. The Roberts court has heard plenty of
such cases and has expanded free exercise rights.

It's just that a religious belief is something that's asserted and the
other side doesn't get to question whether it's sincerely held or even
applicable to the matter at hand.

Obamacare itself doesn't exactly fund health care. It imposes costs on
third parties, typically employers and group medical insurance policies.

My opinion on whether there should be an unfunded federal mandate is
irrelevant. I was concern that the plaintiff asserted that the
requirement to cover PrEP (the AIDS prophylactic medicine that's taken
throughout life by high-risk individuals) is unconstitutional per free
exercise of religion as it encourages same-sex relationships and
intravenous drug use.

Sharing of dirty needles puts certain individuals at risk for HIV
transmission without sex. Yes, I think it's absurd to consider them at
risk for AIDS and therefore qualified to receive PrEP through health
plans regulated by Obamacare.

PrEP is heavily advertised on tv and can cost $10s of thousands per
patient per year.

This assertion of free exercise of religion once again allows one party
to assert that another party is violating his religious values, thereby
imposing religion on other people who have somehow lost their own right
of free exercise of religion. It's outrageous.

Well, the drug wasn't even mentioned by the justices (except for a
single reference by Barrett). They concentrated a different
unconstitutional assertions concerning the Appointments clause, and
whether the Obamacare drug panels that make these decisions are convened
unconstitutionally as the president doesn't appoint them and they aren't
subject to Senate confirmation.

It doesn't appear that the justices cared about the free exercise clause
issue, although I'll bet Thomas might address it in dissent.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/court-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force/

I'm a lot less concerned about the other case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, which
is about parents objections to school curriculum and that it's become
mandatory for public school children to be instructed in LGBTQ+ themes.

I've argued before that it's a freedom of the press issue if parents
seek to remove books on subjects they don't approve of from school and
public libraries to "protect children". I don't see parental objections
to curriculum as censorship. Libraries offer reading material as a
choice but curriculum is imposed.

My guess is that the Supreme Court will side with the parents.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes/