Supreme Court Rules Some Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Boo! hiss! At least it is limited.

______

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-rules-some-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a limited decision, ruled Monday that closely held, for-profit companies can claim a religious exemption to the Obamacare requirement that they provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

For-profit corporations — including Conestoga Wood of Pennsylvania, owned by a family of Mennonite Christians, and Hobby Lobby, a family-owned chain of arts and crafts stores founded on Biblical principles — had challenged a provision of the Affordable Care Act.

It requires companies with more than 50 employees to cover preventive care services, which include such contraceptives as morning-after pills, diaphragms and IUDs.

The court’s ruling Monday was 5-4, written by Justice Samuel Alito, and the decision appeared to be extremely limited. It did not appear to open the door to other types of religious-exemption claims by companies.

Instead, the ruling appeared to be a clear victory for the companies that brought the case and for perhaps 50 to 60 other companies like them with similar objections to the contraceptive requirement.

[mota bhai 2,675]

"closely held", no big deal. employers of choice almost never are, and they will continue to use their benefits package as one component of their overall offering in their ongoing fight against each other for the best talent.

[SMOKE 1,426]

[Teddy B 17,252]

Boo! hiss! At least it is limited.

______

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-rules-some-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a limited decision, ruled Monday that closely held, for-profit companies can claim a religious exemption to the Obamacare requirement that they provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

For-profit corporations — including Conestoga Wood of Pennsylvania, owned by a family of Mennonite Christians, and Hobby Lobby, a family-owned chain of arts and crafts stores founded on Biblical principles — had challenged a provision of the Affordable Care Act.

It requires companies with more than 50 employees to cover preventive care services, which include such contraceptives as morning-after pills, diaphragms and IUDs.

The court’s ruling Monday was 5-4, written by Justice Samuel Alito, and the decision appeared to be extremely limited. It did not appear to open the door to other types of religious-exemption claims by companies.

Instead, the ruling appeared to be a clear victory for the companies that brought the case and for perhaps 50 to 60 other companies like them with similar objections to the contraceptive requirement.

This is a form of discrimination against personal and private choice and shouldn't be allowed. It is fine for one to refuse the contraception option offered in the ACA if one so chooses, but it is not fine for an employer to make that personal and private choice for their employees.

I wonder if Hobby Lobby has a section on it's employment application dedicated to one's religious beliefs and sexual practices?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Teddy B

[SMOKE 1,426]

This is a form of discrimination against personal and private choice and shouldn't be allowed. It is fine for one to refuse the contraception option offered in the ACA if one so chooses, but it is not fine for an employer to make that personal and private choice for their employees.

I wonder if Hobby Lobby has a section on it's employment application dedicated to one's religious beliefs and sexual practices?

[Jacque67 7,328]

Why can't they just install a condom vending machine in the loos?

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

This is a form of discrimination against personal and private choice and shouldn't be allowed. It is fine for one to refuse the contraception option offered in the ACA if one so chooses, but it is not fine for an employer to make that personal and private choice for their employees.

I wonder if Hobby Lobby has a section on it's employment application dedicated to one's religious beliefs and sexual practices?

When I worked for Hobby Lobby I had to give them a daily report of my sexual activities and draw diagrams. They were studied and then I was given suckers or demerits, depending on if I did good or bad.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Good ruling. No one should be allowed to interfere or be forced to fund someone elses reproductive choices. Stay out of my womb, but pay for my choices. Hypocrisy at it's best.

I fully support a woman's right to choose, and my right not to pay for it.

Now, if I owned a company my choice would be to pay for it, as I think we need much more birth control. Liberty comes first. It is not the Govt's role to make hobby lobby pay for your sexual reproduction choices,

[mota bhai 2,675]

This is a form of discrimination against personal and private choice and shouldn't be allowed. It is fine for one to refuse the contraception option offered in the ACA if one so chooses, but it is not fine for an employer to make that personal and private choice for their employees.

I wonder if Hobby Lobby has a section on it's employment application dedicated to one's religious beliefs and sexual practices?

You know what, it's a big country and there will always need to be carve-outs like this for specific constituencies. I don't see this as a big deal. This is what happens to every big law with time. Congress and the courts 'modify' it to fit facts on the ground.

[JohnR! 5,495]

This is a form of discrimination against personal and private choice and shouldn't be allowed. It is fine for one to refuse the contraception option offered in the ACA if one so chooses, but it is not fine for an employer to make that personal and private choice for their employees.

I wonder if Hobby Lobby has a section on it's employment application dedicated to one's religious beliefs and sexual practices?

They have no religious belief. It is just a way for the church to tell others how they should live their lives... I wonder if they also object to paying for coverage for Viagra, Cialis and the likes...

[SMOKE 1,426]

You know what, it's a big country and there will always need to be carve-outs like this for specific constituencies. I don't see this as a big deal. This is what happens to every big law with time. Congress and the courts 'modify' it to fit facts on the ground.

1st fact on the ground. hobby lobby didn't oppose providing contraceptive coverage, they opposed specific termination 'choices' that wrongfully fell into (crammed into) the mandate.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Good ruling. No one should be allowed to interfere or be forced to fund someone elses reproductive choices. Stay out of my womb, but pay for my choices. Hypocrisy at it's best.

I fully support a woman's right to choose, and my right not to pay for it.

Now, if I owned a company my choice would be to pay for it, as I think we need much more birth control. Liberty comes first. It is not the Govt's role to make hobby lobby pay for your sexual reproduction choices,

The only one being interfered with are the employees of Hobby Lobby and the other companies who support this 17th century mindset.

On a side note, I'm sure you'll be first in line to help pay for the welfare of the unwanted babies that are a direct result of this ruling, right?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The only one being interfered with are the employees of Hobby Lobby and the other companies who support this 17th century mindset.

On a side note, I'm sure you'll be first in line to help pay for the welfare of the unwanted babies that are a direct result of this ruling, right?

I am so on board for stopping all these unwanted babies and people using contraceptives. I think there should be a pill to get pregnant, in a perfect world.

However I don't think it's the Govt's place to force someone to pay for someone else s reproductive choices, however backward both of us think that is ?

[JohnR! 5,495]

The only one being interfered with are the employees of Hobby Lobby and the other companies who support this 17th century mindset.

On a side note, I'm sure you'll be first in line to help pay for the welfare of the unwanted babies that are a direct result of this ruling, right?

You should know better. The religious crowd only defends the sanctity of life until the baby is out of the womb. From that moment on it is every man for himself.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I am so on board for stopping all these unwanted babies and people using contraceptives. I think there should be a pill to get pregnant, in a perfect world.

However I don't think it's the Govt's place to force someone to pay for someone else s reproductive choices, however backward both of us think that is ?

We don't live in a perfect world, to deny anyone access to contraception and birth control is ridiculous in this day and age, no matter who is paying for it. It's a universal healthcare system, not a pick and chose as you go system. If you don't want to use some of the services offered under the ACA, then fine, don't use them. But don't force the people you employ and claim to care about to seek other methods simply because of your own personal beliefs.