Court to look anew at health care law birth control rules

The Associated Press ^ | January 17, 2020 | by Mark Sherman

[Oldeconomybuyer]

The Supreme Court will consider allowing the Trump administration to enforce rules that allow more employers to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives to women.

The justices agreed Friday to yet another case stemming from President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, this time about cost-free birth control.

The high court will review an appeals court ruling that blocked the Trump administration rules because it did not follow proper procedures. The new policy on contraception, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would allow more categories of employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing no-cost birth control to women by claiming religious objections.

The policy also would allow some employers, though not publicly traded companies, to raise moral objections to covering contraceptives.

Employers also would be able to cover some birth control methods, and not others. Some employers have objected to covering modern, long-acting implantable contraceptives, such as IUDs, which are more expensive and considered highly effective.

[Shethink13]

Employers also would be able to cover some birth control methods, and not others. Some employers have objected to covering modern, long-acting implantable contraceptives, such as IUDs, which are more expensive and considered highly effective.

Not to mention they’re basically mini coat hangers implanted into women.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Trump is the CHIEF EXECUTIVE. We hired him to make EXECUITVE DECISIONS. Where in the hell do Courts get off telling him that he has to follow THEIR “approved procedures”?

[Brian Griffin]

Unless the publicly traded company is run on religion-based principles, I don’t think a religious exemption should apply.

Publicly traded companies run on moral principles and other coverage buyers should be able to refuse to pay for baby-killing drugs such as RU-486.

[Texan5]

” mini coat hangers”

As well as being prone to cause some really bad and permanent side effects and injuries-the ambulance chasers are already offering their services in their TV commercials-new cash cow...

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying the exemption should be wider whether their objection is religious, moral, or whatever?

Or that it should be narrower, and apply only to proven abortifacient drugs and devices like RU486 and the IUD, and not to contraceptives per se?

I may have misunderstood you.

[Secret Agent Man]

Its a medical issue between her and her doctor.

Not her company.

Not anyone else.

Women, birth control is not a right. You can purchase it, but you have no right to demand others purchase and provide it for you.

I didn’t go out demanding everyone support my sex life with condoms I said they had to buy me.

Its funny they don’t want anyone to doctate what they can and cannot do, but demand everyone else’s money to pay for it.

[kiryandil]

This was a decision by the Third Circus Court of Appeals last July that went directly to the Supremes.

The 3-"judge" panel of the Third Circus was two Rapin Bill "judges" and a Clownbammy "judge" - unanimous, of course.

Theodore McKee - appointed by Rapin Bill Clinton.
Patty Shwartz - appointed by Jugears ClownBammy.
Julio Fuentes - appointed by Rapin Bill Clinton.

I guess the nuns they ruled against were lucky that these three didn't sacrifice a live baby in a pentagram drawn on the floor of the courtroom to celebrate their dark victory...

[Don Corleone]

Court to look anew at health care law birth control rules

Is it available to us with Medicare part D?/s