Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently made headlines for his dissent in the case of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. The case centered around the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, with exceptions for religious organizations. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns, argued that even the act of filling out a form to claim the exemption violated their religious beliefs.
Alito’s dissent focused on the issue of abortion-inducing drugs, specifically the “morning-after pill” and the “week-after pill.” He argued that the government’s mandate to provide contraceptive coverage could force religious organizations to provide these drugs, which he believes are equivalent to abortion.
Alito’s reasoning is remarkable for a few reasons. First, it shows a deep commitment to the pro-life cause. Alito is not just concerned with preventing abortions, but with preventing anything that could be seen as facilitating abortions. This includes drugs that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, which Alito sees as equivalent to abortion.
Second, Alito’s reasoning is remarkable for its willingness to challenge precedent. In his dissent, Alito argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed closely-held corporations to claim a religious exemption from the contraceptive mandate, did not go far enough. Alito believes that even religious organizations that are not corporations should be able to claim an exemption, and that the government should not be able to force them to provide coverage for drugs they see as equivalent to abortion.
Finally, Alito’s reasoning is remarkable for its implications for religious freedom. Alito argues that the government’s mandate to provide contraceptive coverage could force religious organizations to violate their beliefs, even if they are granted an exemption. This could set a dangerous precedent, as it could allow the government to force religious organizations to provide services or products that go against their beliefs.
Overall, Alito’s dissent in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania is a powerful defense of the pro-life cause and religious freedom. While his views may not be shared by everyone, his reasoning is thoughtful and well-reasoned, and deserves careful consideration.