Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Supreme Court seeks compromise in contraception case

  1. #1
    Member steven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Side!
    Posts
    11,541

    Supreme Court seeks compromise in contraception case

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration struggled Tuesday to defend the so-called contraception mandate in its fledgling health care law before a Supreme Court clearly sympathetic to religious objections raised by employers.

    While the justices were predictably divided along ideological lines, it appeared that a majority of them did not want to force for-profit corporations to offer health plans that include birth control methods they claim cause abortions.

    "Isn't that what we are talking about in terms of their religious beliefs?" Chief Justice John Roberts demanded of the government's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who clearly sought to avoid the inconclusive medical debate over intrauterine devices and morning-after pills. Verrilli responded that 2 million women rely on IUDs alone and do not equate their use with abortion.

    That wasn't the only hot-button issue raised by the case, in which two family-owned businesses with deeply devout owners seek to avoid offering those birth control methods. During the 90-minute oral argument, the justices and lawyers tangled over religious freedom, corporate rights, federal mandates and the potential "slippery slope" that could result if the companies win their case.

    While demonstrators on both sides of the issue braved an early spring snowstorm outside the court, the debate inside represented a return engagement for President Obama's health care law two years after it was upheld in a 5-4 decision.

    This time, the issue wasn't the constitutionality of the law itself but a much more narrow question: Can the government require that employers provide 100% coverage for 20 types of contraceptives?

    In a Supreme Court term that has lacked the drama of last year's gay marriage and civil rights cases or the prior term's health care showdown, the so-called contraception mandate became the marquee event. For that reason, the court's chamber was packed for the debate.


    The central focus of the case was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1993. It was designed to give those with religious beliefs a way of fighting back against laws they consider a violation of those beliefs.

    Unless the companies can use that law, they face fines of $100 per day per employee. That could cost Hobby Lobby $475 million a year for its 13,000 workers. It would be much less expensive to drop health coverage, Kagan noted — $2,000 per employee per year, or $26 million, less than the cost of providing health insurance.

    The companies contend that for-profit businesses should enjoy the same rights as people to exercise religious beliefs — even if they have $3.3 billion in annual revenue and rank 135th on Forbes' list of largest U.S. companies, as Hobby Lobby does.
    The Supreme Court ruled in 2010's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations have free speech rights and, therefore, can spend freely in federal elections. Whether they can practice religion is another question — one the justices need not answer if they base their decision on the owners' rights.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...lobby/6860479/
    People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.

  2. #2
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    In related news, Walmart shareholders believe that nothing should return other than Jesus, and thus walmart will no longer accept returns of the defective goods.

  3. #3
    Member steven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Side!
    Posts
    11,541
    In related news: nogods once again adds nothing intelligent to the discussion.
    People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.

  4. #4
    Member steven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Side!
    Posts
    11,541
    Supreme Court signals support for corporate religious claims

    (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Tuesday it may allow corporations to mount religious objections to government action, possibly paving the way for companies to avoid covering employees' birth control as required under Obamacare.

    During a 90-minute oral argument, 30 minutes more than usual, a majority of the nine justices appeared ready to rule that certain for-profit entities have the same religious rights to object as individuals do. A ruling along those lines would likely only apply to closely held companies.

    As in most close cases of late, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely be the deciding vote. Based on his questions, it was unclear whether the court would ultimately rule that the companies had a right to an exemption from the contraception provision of President Barack Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

    The dozens of companies involved in the litigation do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.
    A short distance from the Supreme Court, Obamacare faced a separate legal challenge, which, if it succeeds, would further undermine the 2010 law considered to be the President's signature domestic policy achievement.

    A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared divided as it heard arguments from businesses in states with federally run health insurance exchanges who said the government was overstepping the authority of the law in providing subsidies on the exchange.

    The cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-354, 13-356.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A2O11W20140325
    People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •