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: 497

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

leaving is not interesting and it has been used temporarily to promote unexplainable change to highschool and highway patrol circumstances aware to good camps, whole chemical hydration of plants and vegetables, whole conduction dogs, pleasant parks and high aware courses of all presentations, as always, there is one understanding uniting life together to see and experience what is interesting forever. Nothing relates to an ending to consciousness while some things get provided out of sight

It seems very strange that this court can make a ruling for religion, as these religions can give no proof on a daily basis of any god or such intelligence exists.

It seems very strange that this court can make a ruling for religion, as these religions can give no proof on a daily basis of any god or such intelligence exists.

According to Justice Alito, the courts have no authority to “tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed.” If it's religion, they don't need proof.

If it's religion, or free speech, or press freedom like ThinkAtheist.  Do you really want the courts deciding a freedom of the press case on the basis that the courts get to decide whether the opinions of the author are flawed?

This decision is problematic, and could have been avoided by just a bit of common sense on the Obama administration's part.  The ruling was inevitable given the makeup of the court, and a foolish thing for the administration to pursue. 

The real problem is the dependency on corporations for health care, as well as the more fundamental question about whether corporations are people for the purposes of rights, while remaining protections for people when it comes to responsibilities.

"The real problem is the dependency on corporations for health care..."

I agree as long as you include all businesses.

I'm always floored when someone is opposed to "all businesses." The guy with the hot dog stand? The guy who makes money writing or taking photographs? The visiting nurse?

I don't get it.

I'll expand just for you, all businesses required to provide healthcare.

...was that really needed?

Apparently.

If it's religion, or free speech, or press freedom like ThinkAtheist.  Do you really want the courts deciding a freedom of the press case on the basis that the courts get to decide whether the opinions of the author are flawed?

The courts already get to decide when free speech and press freedom are "flawed" on the basis that certain "opinions" are demonstrably false, harmful or unlawful.

You cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater to cause a panic.

You cannot publish lies to destroy someone's reputation.

You cannot print leaflets that incite criminal activity.

The courts decide the limits of speech and press. The courts also get to decide the limits of religious accommodation.

The Court with this ruling created corporate religious personhood, then set a "limit" where it may impose religious beliefs on female employees.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is not based on freedom of religion, which the Court has long since limited by denying it the right to such impositions on others. The religious beliefs in question have scant basis in medical science, a factor which the courts don't take into consideration.

As I said: if it's religion, they don't need proof.

This decision is problematic, and could have been avoided by just a bit of common sense on the Obama administration's part.  The ruling was inevitable given the makeup of the court, and a foolish thing for the administration to pursue. 

I hereby forecast that humanity will land on the moon in 1969, that Elvis Presley will die in 1977, and that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Hobby Lobby earlier this week. It's common sense! It's foolish to think otherwise!

I admire high-risk predictions of "inevitable" events after they've already occurred.

It's gutsy as all hell.

...and now this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/03/...

Let's see how deep the hole they're digging can go...

...and now this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/03/...  Let's see how deep the hole they're digging can go...

Naturally, the three women on the Supreme Court dissented...

"The unsigned opinion for the Court made clear that this was not an opinion on the merits of Wheaton’s RFRA claim. Nonetheless, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, dissented from the order."

...while the "narrow" ruling keeps getting wider...

"On Tuesday, the Court indicated that its ruling applies to for-profit employers who object to all twenty forms of birth control included in the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, not just the four methods at issue in the two cases decided on Monday."

...and superstition about contraception keeps trumping medical science.

"Contraceptives prevent pregnancy, abortifacients terminate a pregnancy, and a pregnancy begins at implantation. So contraceptives by definition are not abortifacients because they prevent a pregnancy; if they work, there is no pregnancy to be terminated.These statements are not up for debate. They’re not subject to any “well actually” muddying of the waters. They are incontrovertible facts based in science."

Corporate religious personhood wins big. Women lose. The twisted irony is that making contraception (which is not abortion) more difficult for women to get will probably increase the number of actual abortions.

RSS

Blog Posts

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 1 Comment

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 5 Comments

Ads

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 umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service