World News Korner

Supreme Court hands down decision favoring Hobby Lobby in their case against Obamacare provision requiring companies to offer health insurance that covers birth control. Update!

Courtesy of the Chicago Tribune:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that requires closely held companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control.

The court held on a 5-4 vote on ideological lines that such companies can seek an exemption from the so-called birth control mandate of the healthcare law. The decision means employees of those companies will have to obtain certain forms of birth control from other sources.

In a majority opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court said the ruling applies only to the birth control mandate and does not mean companies would necessarily succeed if they made similar claims to other insurance requirements, such as vaccinations and drug transfusions.

This is a very unfortunate decision by the Supreme Court, and very discriminatory toward women.

I can assure that Hobby Lobby has no such objection to offering health insurance that covers Viagra for men. It is only preventing the potential pregnancies that might result from those medication induced boners that gives them the vapors.

And the argument against providing this coverage due to religious beliefs is itself completely indefensible. It is essentially some mutation of the pro-life argument against providing abortion, however the majority of the medications restricted by this decision are for the prevention of conception, not the termination of conception.

The Bible says NOTHING about birth control and even if it did there should NEVER be an instance where an employer's religious beliefs superseded the family planning or health concerns of their female employees.

Update: Here are the five top takeaways from Justice Ginsberg's dissent.

5. The ruling is too broad: “In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

4. For-profit corporations are not religious organizations: “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.”

3. The ruling violates separation of church and state: “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage”

2. The ruling favors an extreme form of “Christianity” over other religions: “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”

1. Where does it end?: “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

[...] The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

You can read her entire dissent at the link at the top.

Source