Supreme Court: Closely held companies can’t be required to cover contraceptives

Catholic Review ^ | 6/30/14 | Patricia Zapor

[Welchie25]

In a narrowly tailored 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court June 30 said closely held companies may be exempted from a government requirement to include contraceptives in employee health insurance coverage under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The court said that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, the two family-run companies that objected to the government mandate that employees be covered for a range of contraceptives, including drugs considered to be abortifacients, are protected from the requirement of the Affordable Care Act. The opinion essentially held that for-profit companies may hold protected religious views.

But the court also said that government requirements do not necessarily lose if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

The ruling is not a slam-dunk for all entities that oppose the contraceptive mandate for religious reasons. The court noted that cases challenging the mandate for nonprofit entities, such as Catholic colleges and faith-based employers, are pending and that the June 30 ruling doesn’t consider them. The decision also did not delve into whether the private employers have religiously motivated protection from laws under the First Amendment.

It said the government failed to satisfy the requirement of RFRA, a 1993 law, that the least-restrictive means of accomplishing a government goal be followed to avoid imposing a restriction on religious expression.

The majority opinion said the ruling applies only to the contraceptive mandate and should not be interpreted to hold that all insurance coverage mandates - such as for blood transfusions or vaccinations - necessarily fail if they conflict with an employers’ religious beliefs.

[PizzaDriver]

Lets ALL go to the Lobby! Tuesday, we’ll be there using our credit cards{leaving a “footprint”}!

[Mears]

bfl

[scrabblehack]

I could be wrong but I would think that “publicly traded” is not “closely held.”

[GodAndCountryFirst]

All forms of chemical “birth control” are really abortion drugs. They “control birth” by making sure the “fertilized egg”(what you and I would call a baby), is not born.

Contraceptives — those things that prevent conception — are barrier methods (like condoms) and good old-fashioned abstinence. The latter has been made practically illegal in LiberalLand.

Honestly, I think we should throw out 100% of the birth control/contraceptive culture and get back to God. Who’s with me on this?

[HiTech RedNeck]

And if publicly traded it probably couldn’t be subject to a rule like this either. Because then just who has the standard that deserves the deference? There could be a mechanism for getting standards worked in, such as shareholder resolutions.

The USSC probably did the best they could here. Some other case would have to come up involving shareholders before the principle could be supported by the Court.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Let’s not have science as lousy as the global warmists do — anti ovulation drugs aren’t abortifacients any more then refraining from sex is murder.

What a conscientious Christian ought to do is beyond the scope I am treating here.

[GodAndCountryFirst]

Right. Now all we have to do is sponsor shareholder resolutions at public companies asserting each company’s dedication to Christian values and their abhorrence at paying for abortion drugs.

Such resolutions would be very easy to pass and would generate a slew of new test cases.

[HiTech RedNeck]

God makes everything beautiful “in its time.”

[GodAndCountryFirst]

That’s the story. But if you think all “birth control” pills do is prevent ovulation, then you are buying the liberal media spin. They want to pretend “birth control” is the same as contraception. But there is a reason why they are not called contraception pills.