Companies Can Refuse To Cover Contraception, Supreme Court Says

NPR ^ | June 30, 2014 | Bill Chappell

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Supreme Court has ruled that Hobby Lobby and other closely held for-profit corporations can opt out of the Affordable Care Act's provisions for no-cost prescription contraception in most health insurance plans. The companies' owners had objected on the grounds of religious freedom.

The ruling affirms a Hobby Lobby victory in a lower court and gives new standing to similar claims by other companies...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

One small step for man...

[McGavin999]

OMG, thank you Lord!

[apillar]

And Obama swings again...AND ANOTHER STRIKE!

[yldstrk]

Religious can breathe for another day

[George from New England]

Watch for a very active PEN and PHONE day ... Obama has warned us!

[NYer]

VICTORY!

5-4 Opinion

[kevkrom]

I believe I saw that the definition of “closely held” is that 5 or fewer people hold a majority of the ownership.

[Raycpa]

Where’s the but?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Sandra Fluke is sad that she might have to spend $9 of her own money to get contraception.

[skeeter]

Someone who knows please tell us what this means in the larger sense. Does this give standing to others to exempt themselves from the ACA on other grounds?

[Arrowhead1952]

Good. A punch in the chops for 0 bummer. He can take a flying leap at a rolling donut and hope the POS hits the hole. F him.

[NYRepublican72]

Constitution: 1
Obama: 0

[Signalman]

Roberts trying to make amends.

[Marathoner]

5-4 opinion, guessing Kennedy and traitor Roberts swung the right way, for a change.

However it broke, thank GOD!!!

[impimp]

Shareholders of a company should be able to say that they have religious beliefs regardless of whether it is closely held by 5 or fewer people.

[From The Deer Stand]

Freedom 1, Obama 0

[Jagdgewehr]

Supreme Court's war on women.

/sarc

[11th_VA]

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

Which means bend over ...

[punknpuss]

What does this do for EWTN? Didn’t a state supreme court recently rule that the network had to comply even though it was against their closely held doctrine?