Air Force nurse refused to provide contraception to patients on religious grounds

SPC Martin Wiesiolek -
1. I corrected my response to point out that Col. Leland Bohannon was relieved of command in October 2017 and not the previous administration.
2. as anybody familiar with the development of the founding documents including the constitution knows was focused on the government not establishing a state religion which was common in the 18th century.
"On May 30, 2017, a draft of an interim final rule promulgated by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury, addressing conscience-based objections to the coverage of contraceptives under the preventive services requirement of the Affordable Care Act, was leaked to the media. The draft seems authentic and has been widely reported in the media. However, the draft is currently at the Office of Management and Budget for review, and the interim final rule when released may be different from the draft. It will also be accompanied by Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) women’s preventive services guidelines that will embody the new rule. The interim final rule will be effective upon publication, but the administration will accept comments on the rule for 60 days. If promulgated as drafted, the rule will depart dramatically from the position the Obama administration had taken on the contraceptives issue. The Obama administration had asserted a compelling governmental interest in women having access to contraceptives without cost sharing through the insurance plans that otherwise covered their health care. The Obama administration had carved out limited exceptions for religious organizations that opposed covering their employees and students, and had twice gone to the Supreme Court defending the scope of its accommodation as it litigated dozens of cases brought by 122 entities claiming that the requirement infringed their religious liberty."
This rule change was entered as an interim rule in October 2017
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20 [login to see] 08/full/

3. The rational I provided lines up with the appellate court rulings and the SCOTUS ruling which affirmed freedom of religion in this case
Just today "The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal of Mississippi’s "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act," allowing a lower court ruling in favor of the law to stand, ensuring religious freedom in the Magnolia State.
The state legislature passed the law to give religious-minded citizens the freedom to not violate their conscience. The legislation does not allow a business owner to refuse service discriminately, but provides protections if someone declines to participate in a ceremony or event that might go against their religious beliefs."
What do you think? LTC John Shaw COL Mikel J. Burroughs SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" Maj William W. 'Bill' Price Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. LTC Wayne Brandon LTC Wayne Brandon

It has always mystified me how the religion clause in the Constitution has been so twisted and turned to deny mention of any religious topic in anything related to govt. whereas the amendment forbids govt. establishment of a religion it also forbids govt. from passing laws to infringe on the freedom to practice religion. The courts have taken the first part to extremes but have virtually denied the second part.

Well said SFC Michael Hasbun