Posted on 06/30/2014 7:36:22 AM PDT by xzins
Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
I’ve weighed in from the beginning. I don’t like this. It will backfire and, in time, will enable discrimination against us as Christians. Fortunately, it was a VERY narrow ruling so that may save us.
But did you see the one where the Government can pay for the Contraception per the opinion? So the Government will soon be paying for it out of existing ACA funds.
I may stand alone here, but I think this ruling is a disaster for the reasons stated.
(3)
This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate andshould not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarilyfall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discriminationas a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there isno less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate.Pp. 45–49.
See #4.
I don’t think it’s a disaster. It appeals to the RFRA, so if that is ever appealed, then it would come up again for review.
We are all doomed anyway so as Hilary says “What difference does it make?”
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Two fingers at a time? :)
Gee,I wonder if her being exempt from OsamaObamaCare might have anything to do with her support of it.
Interesting that SCOTUS assumes the regulation serves a compelling government interest; and strikes it down on other grounds.
Can we all tell Sandra to, ‘Fluke’, off now?
It appears this decision addresses the “for-profit” employers only. Will they have to provide the secondary insurance like non-profits are doing that will provide the specific contraceptive with which they religiously object?
Uh but Congress would have to authorize that expense. I know that that won’t stop Obama, but he only has 2 years left...and hopefully less if republicans win the senate and grow a pair. I can dream can’t I?
This is wonderful news.My husband and I were watching it live.WOOOHOOOO
The Hyde amendment will likely keep it.from being funded by govt.
Here’s an important question that we all need to consider...
Do you all think Obama is going to actually COMPLY with the Supreme Court ruling? What if he were to unilaterally declare that he will not abide by the ruling because “discrimination against women’s health care choices and rights will not be tolerated by the Supreme Court”?
Folks, I’m telling you... Don’t think for a moment these thoughts aren’t currently crossing the tyrannical Kenyan communist dictator’s mind.
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.