Supreme Court: religious corporations may restrict women's reproductive health care

Today the US Supreme Court ruled that business owners may cite religious beliefs to be exempt from federal law that requires private companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control. The decision means employees of such such companies will have to obtain certain forms of birth control from other sources.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along partisan lines in favor of two plaintiffs. One was arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby, which is owned and operated by evangelical Christians David and Barbara Green. The other was Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., which is owned and operated by Norman and Elizabeth Hahn, who are Mennonites.
(Source)

Ironically, while the Supreme Court has just allowed for-profit corporations to restrict women's reproductive health care for superstitious reasons, they are not allowed to restrict men's reproductive health care, including coverage for Viagra.

Tags: Court, Hobby, Lobby, Supreme, contraception, rights, women's

Views: 476

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the one. The one may choose to sacrifice for the greater good, but it's up to the one to decide, not the many.

a blastocyst wouldn't exist apart from a conception.

You realise, of course, that the human body "aborts" blastocysts before implantation with surprising frequency?

Lacking intent, there's no moral/ethical issue there.

A human body is not the property of the State, it is the property of the citizen alone.  One main role of governance is to protect the weak from the manipulations of the powerful, that role seems to have been abandoned for some time now.  This is what Empires look like as they fail.

I think it is absolute bullshit. Their employees pay for their insurance through the company. If the company is going to make money and so forth then they shouldn't have a role in a say for what the insurance covers....that's just my take.

I think it is absolute bullshit. Their employees pay for their insurance through the company. If the company is going to make money and so forth then they shouldn't have a role in a say for what the insurance covers....that's just my take.

Women in the United States are a little less free now.

It'll be interesting to see just how far this goes in subsequent cases. Boss doesn't believe in vaccination? Blood transfusions? All medical science? Tough luck. It's coming out of your own pocket.

But, nah. Rulings that favor crackpot beliefs on the other issues would be too inclusive. This ruling is sufficiently focused and contemptuous of women to satisfy the Roberts Supreme Court for a good long while. That doesn't mean religious nutbags in the lower courts will restrain themselves, though.

How far will it go?  I don't know how far, but I think it'll get worse before it gets better.

I think now that they have a toehold, religious corporations will continue to push forward on even those crackpot beliefs until the court is forced to draw a line in the sand with a principle ruling saying religious beliefs cannot interfere with provision of medical care.  Where that line is will depend on how liberal or conservative the court is at the time.  Hopefully then, based on that new principle, the (someday, new, more liberal) court will roll it all back to where it should be, and erase the colossal error in judgment they just made.  Could be years, could be decades.

How far will it go?  I don't know how far, but I think it'll get worse before it gets better. I think now that they have a toehold, religious corporations will continue to push forward on even those crackpot beliefs until the court is forced to draw a line in the sand with a principle ruling saying religious beliefs cannot interfere with provision of medical care.  Where that line is will depend on how liberal or conservative the court is at the time.  Hopefully then, based on that new principle, the (someday, new, more liberal) court will roll it all back to where it should be, and erase the colossal error in judgment they just made.  Could be years, could be decades.

It would be gratifying to see a repeal of the legislation responsible for this debacle, but given that it passed with strong bipartisan support under a liberal president, it's difficult to imagine that'll happen in the near future.

...but given that it passed with strong bipartisan support under a liberal president...

??? that guy is liberal ???

it's hard to tell.

Liberal ain't what it used to be, I guess.

Women in the United States are a little less free now.

But only a little, in the sense that of the 22 contraceptives for women on the menu, Hobby Lobby objected to only six of them. They objected to the forms that interfere with bringing a conception to term. Not that I approve of that, but all too often this decision is described as "depriving women of birth control" which leaves the impression that Hobby Lobby women have been left with no options whatsoever. Not quite true.

My ultimate concern is that this sort of decision implies the dismantling of Obamacare through the "death by a thousand cuts," and also the implications for institutionalizing the prejudices of religious groups against, for example, LGBT's in many other ways.

BTW, the basis for Hobby Lobby's case was a law sponsored by Pres. Clinton.

If Hobby Lobby is anything like my company, it pays for 90% of the employee's insurance.

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 1 Comment

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service