Subscribe Register Login

Wednesday, July 30, 2014, 8:23 p.m.
Top Picks - Capture Arkansas

Justices: Can't make employers cover contraception

By The Associated Press

This article was published June 30, 2014 at 9:33 a.m.

michael-hichborn-kneels-and-prays-as-he-joins-demonstrators-while-waiting-for-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-the-hobby-lobby-case-outside-the-supreme-court-in-washington-on-monday-june-30-2014

Michael Hichborn kneels and prays as he joins demonstrators while waiting for the Supreme Court's decision on the Hobby Lobby case outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Monday, June 30, 2014.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby case?

  • Yes. 63% 83 votes
  • No. 33% 44 votes
  • I'm not sure; I need to examine the case further. 3% 4 votes

131 total votes.

WASHINGTON — 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.

Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 and the Supreme Court upheld two years later.

Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama's campaign for re-election.

On Monday, dealing with a small sliver of the law, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. The court's four liberal justices dissented.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

Comments on: Justices: Can't make employers cover contraception

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Displaying 1 - 10 of 91 total comments

Jump to last page >>

HalALouyah says... June 30, 2014 at 9:38 a.m.

Let the whining commence in 3.2.1.......

( | suggest removal )

Goad says... June 30, 2014 at 9:50 a.m.

Guess our brilliant Supreme Court thinks corporations are real people. They are turning in to religious focused court, which our constitution is supposed to avoid.

( | suggest removal )

FreeSpiritMan says... June 30, 2014 at 10:16 a.m.

Hobby Lobby is opposed to emergency contraceptives as I understand.
These forms of contraceptives keep the egg from releasing and attaching to the uterus.
This also occurs naturally in 40% of women who cannot become pregnant.
If this natural occurrence is not considered abortion, why would the use of a "morning after" pill be considered abortion?

( | suggest removal )

FreeSpiritMan says... June 30, 2014 at 10:17 a.m.

The theocracy has begun.

( | suggest removal )

23cal says... June 30, 2014 at 10:26 a.m.

I'll bet all the wingers screaming about "activist judges" in regard to same sex marriage decisions think that turning corporations into people isn't activist at all.

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... June 30, 2014 at 10:34 a.m.

Dang, this has been a bad, bad, bad past few days with the Supremes for BH Obama. He gets pimp-slapped with his executive orders and now comes more bad news about his "signature" law Obamacare. Wasn't BH once a constitutional law professor? His students are now sadly as ignorant of the law as him. The good news is the ruling pays tribute to the sanctity of life. How can anyone be distressed about that?

( | suggest removal )

Populist says... June 30, 2014 at 11:21 a.m.

Packman,

It was a 5-4 decision. I an unfamiliar with the term "pimp slapped" and am unsure why you would think such a term would be applicable to the president of our country.

( | suggest removal )

lazybar says... June 30, 2014 at 12:11 p.m.

any one vote against obozo`s agenda is a vote in a forward direction

( | suggest removal )

HotSpringsLawyer says... June 30, 2014 at 12:33 p.m.

I havent studied the decision yet, but aside from the underlying issue it is a little puzzling to me why the owners of a closely held for profit corporation can use all the protections of incorporation, but somehow maintain the right to treat the corporation as their alter ego for purposes of religion. And, contrary to Mitt Romney's view, traditionally corporations were not treated as "people", except for limited purposes (ability to contract, etc.)

( | suggest removal )

3rdWorldState says... June 30, 2014 at 12:59 p.m.

Agreed. This just opened up one hell of a can.

( | suggest removal )

Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

TOP JOBS

Search 952 jobs >

Top Picks - Capture Arkansas
Arkansas Online