Humanism for the High Court: AHA’s Brief on Zubik v. Burwell
One of the highest profile Supreme Court cases this term is Zubik v. Burwell, where religious groups are objecting to the procedure for exemption to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. The American Humanist Association filed an amicus brief in the case earlier this year, presenting a unique humanist view of the issue to the court.
After oral arguments in the case were heard in March, the Supreme Court asked the attorneys for the parties to provide supplemental briefs, an unusual twist in a case that is expected to be decided by a close vote. Amicus parties like the AHA were not allowed to file supplemental briefs, but Attorney Gordon Gamm, author of the AHA’s amicus brief, wanted to get the humanist view heard, so he drafted a supplemental memorandum addressing the court’s concerns. Here at this link, we present Gamm’s supplemental humanist argument supporting the contraception mandate process of the Affordable Care Act. Summed up succinctly, the humanist position isn’t hard to understand: religious opinions of employers and judges should not endanger anyone’s healthcare.