Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rebuked the high court's majority ruling exempting some companies from ObamaCare's contraception mandate, saying the "startling breadth" of the decision would allow business to "opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
In a scathing 35-page dissent, Ginsburg wrote that the decision would "deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage." And she questioned the potentially wide-reaching ramifications should other businesses seek exemptions for disparate religious objections in the future:
Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? […] There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts "out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims," or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be "perceived as favoring one religion over another," the very "risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude. The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield. [Supreme Court]