MysteryMen
Scott "Rufio" Feather
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 5,943
- Reaction score
- 274
This is a gross mischaracterization of the argument. The argument is that by signing the form they are, by law, authorizing their TPA to provide something they have a religious objection to. You may disagree that that's protected by RFRA, but don't make the argument out to be something it isn't.
And where are you getting this idea that nonprofits won't have any obligation to self identify? Even if the SCOTUS sides with them, it could very easily require them to self identify through another method.
At this point, this is a lot of hyperventilating over very little. Breyer didn't even join Sotomayor's dissent.
They order requires them to self-identify to the HHS. But that would leave the government to identify their TPA and notify them which is a cumbersome expansion of the administrative process and may not even be feasible.
And I think the hypothetical from the Seventh Circuit illustrates why the idea that they are authorizing the TPA is not correct. The law is what requires the TPA to provide coverage, regardless of the form. But even if you think that point is debatable, I can't see how it is considered a clear enough legal issue to justify the Supreme Court granting an injunction that has been withheld by the lower courts
Last edited: