Schmidt Wrote: Huffington Post, June 30, 2014: Supreme Court Rules In Hobby Lobby Case, Delivering Blow To Birth Control Coverage
The Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority ruled that private corporations like Hobby Lobby cannot be required to provide contraception coverage in their employees' insurance plans.
"In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell that the Obama administration has failed to show that the contraception mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act is the "least restrictive means of advancing its interest" in providing birth control at no cost to women.
"The opinion was written narrowly so as only to apply to the contraception mandate, not to religious employers who object to other medical services, like blood transfusions or vaccines.
I suppose this verdict was not unexpected given the make-up of the court. It's just another in a long line of 5-4 decisions. The Bush legacy lives on.
johnnycee Wrote: if not then the comparison between the morning after pill and those 2 items is bogus.
jaredsxtn Wrote: johnnycee Wrote: if not then the comparison between the morning after pill and those 2 items is bogus. It is not bogus whatsoever. A private company is now legally able to dictate what health care services their employees can receive. They have no problem providing services that any reasonable person can assume is voluntary to men, but then deny services that nearly every licensed OB-GYN deems is essential to women. What if a company owned by a woman decides otherwise? I guarantee you the Supreme Court would rule in a different way because five old men would never vote against their own interests. You may think its bogus because you're a man and are biased towards the things you're eligible for, but you are no doctor and have zero idea what you are talking about.
johnnycee Wrote: You are correct in that I am not a M.D. but when you made references to Viagra and something called a penis pump and compared them to a morning after pill, then of course it's bogus
johnnycee Wrote: but if you mean any and all contraceptive means then you are just a little off base, I thought the ruling was very narrow in scope and it only nixed the Morning After pill and some type of IUD device, is this correct,
johnnycee Wrote: I am aware of Justice Bader's dissent ,but it is filled with a lot of "What if's and suppositions, I will wait until the Appeals are heard and read the arguments both pro and con before I believe the ruling is anything then what was ruled.