Republican Judges Mount New Assaults on Privacy and LGBT Rights

The clear implication of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs is that no right to privacy was expressly written into the U.S. Constitution and that, therefore, the extremist majority is free to over rule past decisions based on a right of privacy in personal relationships and autonomy.  Indeed, Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion made it clear that same sex marriage. samesex relationships, and the use of contraception by married couples all could be stripped away (ironically, Thomas is too stupid to grasp that Loving v. Virginia could also be reversed on the same basis).  Similarly, the same majority on the Court believes that religious belief under the fals flag of "religious freedom" trumps - no pun intended - all other rights.  As the mid-tems approach two court actions are reminders of just how extreme and out of step today's Republicans are in terms of the views and beliefs the majority of Americans.  The first reminder is a GOP appointed federal judge's ruling out of Texas (the same judge previously tried to strike down the Affordable Health Care Act).  The ruling targeted LGBT rights to access to medication and is a reminder that contraception also remains vulnerable to GOP extremism.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the disturbing ruling:

Jonathan Mitchell is at it again. Mitchell is the conservative lawyer behind S.B. 8, the Texas law that ended most abortions in the state in 2021, even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Now, Mitchell is going after the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that private employers’ insurance policies cover preventive medical services. In a case brought by Mitchell, a federal judge on Wednesday ruled that a Texas company can’t be forced to provide coverage for drugs that prevent HIV infection because its Christian owner says such medication “facilitates and encourages homosexual behavior” in violation of his religious beliefs.

That wasn’t all. Mitchell, pressing an array of arguments that conservatives have deployed to dismantle the modern administrative state, argued that the mandates for free contraception and other preventive services were unconstitutional because the entities imposing the rules weren’t subject to enough presidential control or congressional oversight.

He lost on the contraception claim, but the judge, Reed O’Connor, found that the panel that determines what other services should be covered is unconstitutional because its members aren’t appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate — threatening guaranteed no-cost coverage for everything from cancer screening to vaccines.

[T]he Biden Justice Department noted in urging O’Connor to dismiss the case, Braidwood didn’t claim it was being asked to cover the medication — just that there was a “hypothetical possibility that it may one day have to make” such a payment. As the department’s brief said, “It is difficult to imagine that individuals eligible to be prescribed PrEP medications would choose to work for Braidwood,” given the company’s anti-gay stance. This is not the stuff on which strong federal cases are made.

Yet, here we go again — pushed by conservative lawyers, a conservative judge (O’Connor was nominated by George W. Bush) bends over backward to accommodate strained claims of religious liberties. . . . . as this dispute demonstrates, things have gotten entirely out of whack and, in this era of conservative-dominated courts, now tilt too far in the direction of religious rights.

Antiviral PrEP medications — short for pre-exposure prophylaxis — reduce the risk of contracting HIV from sex by 99 percent. As a result, a government advisory committee recommended in 2019 that the drugs be made part of the mandatory package of fully subsidized preventive care.

This is a development that everyone should cheer, including people who call themselves Christians: It prevents needless death. But Mitchell’s lawsuit claims the requirement forces religious employers “to choose between subsidizing lifestyles that violate their religious beliefs” and not providing insurance to their employees — and makes them “complicit in these behaviors.” Complicit?

More such clashes are coming. Two years ago, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the court ruled that federal anti-discrimination law covers gay and transgender workers. But by Mitchell’s — and O’Connor’s — reasoning, it would be a violation of an employer’s religious rights to apply that ruling to any employer whose anti-gay discrimination had a religious basis: If it’s subsidizing gay conduct to cover anti-HIV medication, then isn’t it subsidizing gay conduct to pay gay employees?

The court in Bostock said religious rights might “supersede” anti-discrimination law “in appropriate cases” and put off the issue for another day. The Mitchell-O’Connor approach would carve a gaping loophole in that protection. Which might suit this conservative court just fine.

Action at the Supreme Court likewise reminds everyone that claims of restrictions on "religious freedom" threat the rights of both the majority of Americans and minority groups groups in particular.  As NBC News reports, the Court blocked a lower court ruling that would require a "conservative" Jweish university to recognize a LGBT student orgaization.  Here are higlights:

The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed an Orthodox Jewish university in New York to deny official recognition to an LGBTQ student group, the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious rights. . . . Yeshiva University, which claims that recognizing the group would be contrary to its sincere religious beliefs.

The dispute is the latest clash between religious rights and LGBTQ rights to reach the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Friday's decision puts on hold a decision by a New York state judge, who ruled in June that the university was bound by the New York City Human Rights Law, which bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. The university argues that it is a religious institution and therefore should be exempted from the law. Requiring it to endorse the group would be a “clear violation” of its rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion, the university argues.

The Pride Alliance group, which first sought recognition in 2019, sued in April 2021, saying the university was required to grant its request because it is a place of public accommodation that is covered by the anti-discrimination law.

Katherine Rosenfeld, a lawyer for Pride Alliance, said Friday that the group "remains committed to creating a space space for LGBTQ students" on campus and would await final action from the Supreme Court.

Americans need to wake up to the threat claims of "religious freedom" pose to many rights currently enjoyed by citizens.