The Supreme Court of the United States is again divided, this time over the Obama Care mandated contraceptive coverage statute. Once again, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is in the balance of power as the Court hears arguments over wither religious corporations should pay for the contraceptives used by its employees. I ask Christians everywhere to pray for this case to be resolved in favor of religious freedom. This issue is NOT about money — it’s about the government forcing religious institutions to adopt their morality, or lack of it. It’s about freedom of religion, pure and simple. Please pray!
A divided Supreme Court presided over a spirited argument Tuesday about whether business owners’ religious beliefs can trump a requirement in President Obama’s Affordable Care Actthat they provide their employees with insurance coverage for all types of contraceptives. It was difficult to predict from the argument which side would prevail, but the government had the tougher task: to prove that the requirement did not violate a federal statute that gives great protection to the exercise of religion. As is often the case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed to hold the balance. While in some ways he seemed to favor the government, he was also worried the government’s argument would make it impossible for companies to object to paying for anything, including abortion coverage. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said that was not true, and he repeatedly tried to get the justices to focus not just on the rights of the employers, but also on the rights of employees who would be denied the type of contraceptive coverage best for them. The three liberal and female justices were the most vocal in questioning Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing two companies who object to providing coverage for certain types of contraceptives. <content omitted> What is likely to be the signature ruling of the court’s term presents the justices with complicated questions about religious freedom and equality for female workers. It could have long-term implications for what other legal requirements companies could decline because of religious convictions. And it asks a question the court has never confronted: whether the Constitution or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which protects an individual’s exercise of religion, extends to secular, for-profit corporations and their owners. The 1993 religious-freedom law prohibits the federal government from imposing a “substantial burden” on a person’s exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling governmental interest” and the measure is the least-restrictive means of achieving the interest.
Finish this article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-supreme-court-today The Supreme Court is divided and we pray its landmark decision will be in favor of religious freedom and not against it. Will you pray with us? We need freedom to establish Christ in culture for the good of our country.