Skip to comments.Justices Hear Case on Health Law’s Contraceptive Rule
Posted on 03/25/2014 4:48:08 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
In an argument that touched on medical science and moral philosophy, the Supreme Court on Tuesday wrestled with whether corporations may refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraception to their workers based on the religious beliefs of the corporations owners. --snip--
Hobby Lobby told the justices that it had no problem offering coverage for many forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery. But drugs and devices that may prevent embryos from implanting in the womb are another matter, the company said; its owners believe those would make the company complicit in a form of abortion.
Failure to offer comprehensive coverage could leave it subject to fines of $1.3 million a day, Hobby Lobby said, while dropping insurance coverage for its employees entirely could lead to fines of $26 million a year. Those choices, the company said, placed a burden on its owners religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I’m hoping they take the mandate out of the policies...period. It should never have been in there in the first place. Anyone can afford birth control so this isn’t about that. It’s about free abortions. And there will be MORE abortions, not less.
Sort of like those exemptions for unions and all other kinds of exemptions and moving timelines. This whole law stinks like last weeks fish.
The Constitution charges Congress with limited legislative power to create law.
HHS issued a mandate. Mandates/diktats/ukases are not law.
In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The HHS non-law mandate violates congressional real law.
The majority decision writes itself.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
At some point, I hope sooner than later, the Convention of States may neutralize (nullify?) some of the arbitrary, dictatorial, oligarchy feel of SCOTUS.
Unbelievably, Obama won in 2012 largely because Sandra Fluke told females that fornicating will cost more under Romney. This is how pathetic the 2012 core issue became.
An entire nation deconstructed and destroyed so females could fornicate as much as they want for free and without fear of its consequences.
It’s a hell of a note that Charles Manson was right about the SC in 1970.
If Hobby loses, Moslem butcher stores will have to cut kosher.
Really? How's that? You mean women are too stupid to go to WalMart and pay $4 for their own birth control?
If they really wanted an employer to pay for their birth control, there's nothing stopping them from finding another job either now is there?
To think this stupid hispanic bimbo is sitting on the United States Supreme Court makes me physically ill. As if all women are as stupid as her...
One would think so OTOH Have seen that stated before. Only thing different is 0 is throwing his weight around now! He needs to be checked
What was that?
He said it’s assinine that 9 men appointed and approved by the elite can sit in judgement of 200,000,000 people...or whatever the population was at the time. It appears to me he was seeing the judge as being activists.
Not sure whether he was referring to their legitimate Constitutional role or their judicial “activism” outside their legitimate Constitutional role. I think his case went before SCOTUS but I’m not sure. Either way Mason was a wacko but had (has?) a high IQ as I recall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.