There are two cases currently pending, one in federal district court in Colorado, and the other in the 10th Circuit, which deal with "Obamacare's" requirement that businesses cover reproductive health care services for women as part of their health care plans. The intent of this requirement was to eliminate the gender discrimination inherent in excluding certain health services for women, as such exclusions have an obviously disparate impact on women. Two companies, Hobby Lobby and Hercules Industries, are challenging this requirement as unconstitutional because it goes against their religious beliefs (presumably the belief that reproductive health care is evil or a sin, presuming that a corporation is a "person" who can actually hold religious beliefs (?)) and they should therefore not be required to pay for this type of health care. Interesting issues.
According to this writer, if there were more women on the federal bench deciding these types of cases, maybe those judges would be more likely to rule in favor of women's rights because they understand the importance of these services. Not sure if I agree that a judge would be more likely to rule one way or the other on a constitutional issue just because she is a woman, but still, it's something to think about.
We Need More Female Judges - Denver Post
For the law geeks, here is the recent appellate opinion on the injunction issues in the Hobby Lobby case which concludes that for-profit corporations are indeed "persons" who can hold religious beliefs (pages 25-35 of the opinion):
Hobby Lobby v. United States - 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
