Skip to comments.Court: Religious rights trump birth control rule
Posted on 06/30/2014 2:03:38 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that some companies with religious objections can avoid the contraceptives requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the first time the high court has declared that businesses can hold religious views under federal law.
The justices' 5-4 decision, splitting conservatives and liberals, means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under the health insurance plans of objecting companies.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, over a dissent from the four liberal justices, that forcing companies to pay for methods of women's contraception to which they object violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He said the ruling is limited and there are ways for the administration to ensure women get the birth control they want.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Abortifactants are not “contraceptives”.
Spin, spin, spin. Even with the Obama stooges on the SCOTUS, the rights of the people prevailed. Of the three branches, the one that is “supposed” to be NON-partisan, is so totally partisan and political.
Sad for America really, and our Constitution.
Nobody is denying anybody any rights.
They are only upholding the right of people not to have to pay for personal behavior that violates their religious conscience.
Nobody is preventing anybody from buying whatever contraceptives or abortifacients they want. They have plenty of money for bear, cigarettes, HBO, cable, internet, and 52” tv, so what’s the big deal about a few bux for the contraceptive or abortafacient of your choice?
Hobby Lobby is among roughly 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives.
That’s why our Constitution must be changed to conform to reality. SCOTUS injects itself into political questions constantly. The politicization of the judiciary means they should be treated like the politicians they are and stand for election every 5 years or so. All judicial offices in Alabama are elective, and so should SCOTUS, the appellate courts and district courts.
This is one the Founders got wrong. They thought the legislative branch would jealously guard their constitutional powers. Not so. Reid wouldn’t permit a vote to convict any liberal jurist.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I haven't ever seen so many articles on a SCOTUS decision in one day. There won't be many pings this summer. So, please bear with me today. I know this is a lot of pings.
Don’t apologize for pinging Buckeye.....this is significant and important. It sets the stage and lets us know what to expect by how people are taking this decision in the next few weeks.
The frequency and louder the oppositions complaints...is a good indication of how they will come out swinging down the road. We can overlook the emotion and get to the heart of what they are saying just by giving it all enough rope.
Well, thank you for your patience. I think I’ve been reading and pinging since 9:30 AM CDT. I’m tired of seeing my own pings on my comment page. Heh.
It’s a shame Obama knows nothing about constitutional law, or we could have avoided this whole mess. How could free stuff for recreation take precedence over freedom of religion in the United States?
Thanks for the pings, BT.
“..This is one the Founders got wrong.”
Yep. The concept of the damage and corruption of professional politicians escaped them totally — at least during the writing of the Constitution and the B of R. Term limits would have helped our republic greatly.
You forget that Obama has a pen and a phone.
You are correct ... this reminds me of Congress.
Yep, and he can shove both of them where the sun doesn't shine.