U.S. top court rules for companies on birth control mandate

[ExodusNirvana]

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that requires closely held companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control.

The court held on a 5-4 vote on ideological lines that such companies can seek an exemption from the so-called birth control mandate of the healthcare law. The decision means employees of those companies will have to obtain certain forms of birth control from other sources.

In a majority opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court said the ruling applies only to the birth control mandate and does not mean companies would necessarily succeed if they made similar claims to other insurance requirements, such as vaccinations and blood transfusions.

In the majority opinion, Alito indicated that employees could still be able to obtain the birth control coverage via an accommodation to the mandate that the Obama administration has already introduced for religious-affiliated nonprofits. The accommodation allows health insurance companies to provide the coverage without the employer being involved in the process.

Under the accommodation, eligible non-profits must provide a "self certification", described by one lower court judge as a "permission slip" authorizing insurance companies to provide the coverage. The accommodation is itself the subject of a separate legal challenge.

The justices ruled for the first time that for-profit companies can make claims under a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The decision will affect similar cases brought by employers around the country. There are 49 cases in total, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Religious institutions are already exempt from the requirement.

The company owners involved in litigation around the country do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some, including Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.

The cases are Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Burwell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-354, 13-356.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/30/us-usa-court-contraceptives-idUSKBN0F51IZ20140630

 

[88m3]

Why because companies are people too?

What a joke.

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

The company owners involved in litigation around the country do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some, including Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.

lol...you can't help but laugh

I hate religion

 

[Jello Biafra]

I want to see how far the term "closely held" will be stretched by some companies after this ruling.

 

[Poitier]

Corporations have more rights than people in this country, what a joke.

 

[tmonster]

lol...you can't help but laugh

I hate religion

it's the most versatile excuse ever invented

 

[Handsback]

lol...you can't help but laugh

I hate religion

And this is the problem. Throw the round 'abortifacient' with NO science to back it up and some Bible quotes and they can do anything they want. The problem is that religion shows no bounds of reason. Storms are because gay people. And now they have influence over people's healthcare. Go 'merica!

 

[Koapa]

As a Democrat I have no problem with this decision. In honesty, this mandate should not have been in the bill in the first place. If you’re gonna be out here fukking, don’t ask someone else to pay for your birth control meds. It’s called personal responsibility, especially if you’re out here raw dogging, go half on the day-after meds. It's like $50 dollars.

If it's rape, then yes cover that cost.

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

Supreme Court is biased. It should consist of neither conservative or liberal justices. They interpret laws based on predetermined beliefs and biased view points.

 

[Starman]

As a Democrat I have no problem with this decision. In honesty, this mandate should not have been in the bill in the first place. If you’re gonna be out here fukking, don’t ask someone else to pay for your birth control meds. It’s called personal responsibility, especially if you’re out here raw dogging, go half on the day-after meds. It's like $50 dollars.

 

[Chris.B]

No issue with this.

Want to screw around? Buy your own shyt.

 

[88m3]

As a Democrat I have no problem with this decision. In honesty, this mandate should not have been in the bill in the first place. If you’re gonna be out here fukking, don’t ask someone else to pay for your birth control meds. It’s called personal responsibility, especially if you’re out here raw dogging, go half on the day-after meds. It's like $50 dollars.

If it's rape, then yes cover that cost.

So it's better that taxpayers subsidize unwanted children?

They don't care if it's rape. Rape is a gift from God.

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

They need to stop saying religious freedom and say Christian freedom. If that was a Muslim or Mormon owned store this wouldn't have happened.

 

[Atlrocafella]

As a Democrat I have no problem with this decision. In honesty, this mandate should not have been in the bill in the first place. If you’re gonna be out here fukking, don’t ask someone else to pay for your birth control meds. It’s called personal responsibility, especially if you’re out here raw dogging, go half on the day-after meds. It's like $50 dollars.

If it's rape, then yes cover that cost.

Yeah as a Dem I'm not too mad at this decision.

 

[Koapa]

So it's better that taxpayers subsidize unwanted children?

They don't care if it's rape. Rape is a gift from God.

Yea, that's a radical standpoint that I don't like from the Repubs. They tend to have radical standpoints until it's their family that's effected (i.e. Gay rights, privacy issues, etc.).