Hobby Lobby can’t be forced to pay for contraception coverage for their employees!
Breaking: SCOTUS holds govt can’t require closely held corps w/ religious owners to provide contraception coverage
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014
This ruling was 5-4 with Alito writing the opinion.
Will bring more as soon as I have it…
UPDATE: More…
AP – The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
The justices’ 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans.
UPDATE 2: This from Mark Levin’s Facebook:
Prediction: Having suffered recent losses at the Supreme Court (which, incidentally, are narrower than most are reporting), watch Obama start a smear campaign against the justices
UPDATE 3: It’s important to remember that this case wasn’t about contraception per se, but about abortion. There are around sixteen other types of contraception that Hobby Lobby does cover:
It’s also important to note that the business owners’ objections were not to contraception, per se, but to abortion. They argued that four types of contraception required to be covered amounted to abortion, as Alito noted and which Solicitor General, in arguing the Obama Administration case in March, has rejected as contrary to any ordinary understanding of what abortion is. Alito:
The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply,they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.