SCOTUS rules against Obamacare and for religious freedom in Hobby Lobby
But it’s a relatively narrow ruling.
It was also another 5-4 decision, indicating how small the margin usually is on the Court. The swing vote this time—the vote that distinguished it from the all-important “is it a tax or a penalty?” question—was that today Justice Roberts voted against Obamacare and his earlier vote kept it viable.
The lede in the AP story goes like this:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some 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 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.
The casual reader who stops right there wouldn’t know that the companies in Hobby Lobby were not refusing to cover contraception in general, merely specific types of contraception where the mechanism might possibly be to block the implantation of a fertilized egg. Nor would they know that “some” corporations were narrowly defined as those that “are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.”
The ruling has other limitations:
Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.
He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.
Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups’ insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control
The ruling actually affects very few companies and relatively few employees. Nor does it seem to threaten Obamacare in any real way. It does have the effect of carving out a small exception that supports religious freedom, which is a good thing. But as a blow to Obamacare it leaves a lot to be desired.
[ADDENDUM: Justice Ginsburg says that with this ruling SCOTUS has “ventured into a minefield.” Is she really unaware that they’ve been walking in a minefield for several years now?]
ISLAM will fix that…
“…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.”
What’s insane is the premise that paying for women’s contraceptives is the responsibility of anyone other that the individual woman.
The way feminists use propaganda, it is “My body, my choice”.
What happens when we’re the ones paying for their body? Don’t they end up as the fetus that can be aborted because they are a parasite on the system?
That’s their ethical logickal system after all. Make them obey their own rules.
But as a blow to Obamacare it leaves a lot to be desired.
Anything that limits O-care, no matter how little, is to be viewed as a net positive.
I agree with Lizzy. But, I am afraid that the horse has left the barn on the issue of providing any free stuff to anyone. It-must-be-done. We-must-find- a-way. The voters expect no less.
It looks as though the Roberts Court will properly be known as the “Teeny Weeny Court”, since all rulings will be on the narrowest possible grounds. It does not appear that there will be any bold defenses of the Constitution. Poor old Constitution, it served so faithfully until it was mortally wounded.
Well, for once I can’t fault the despised AP, which does after all communicate to the Ignorati; its task is to inform not educate. It does so in broad strokes which usually drive me crazy, but they are not communicating with Neo’s readership only, but with the great mass of the Ignorati.
So my only quibble, when viewed in this light, about what Neo quoted from AP, is that AP left out “some” before “contraceptives”. That will matter to the screwers and their screwees.
As far as the Ignorati are concerned, most corporations are “closely held.” No big deal there.
🙁
Israel’s nearly three-week vigil for three teens kidnapped in the West Bank – including one with U.S. citizenship – ended grimly Monday, with the discovery of their bodies just north of Hebron. The search for Eyal Yifrach, 19; Gilad Shaar, 16 and Naftali Frenkel, 16, who were snatched while hitchhiking, ended even as Israeli forces were conducting raids in the West Bank, where Hamas operates. Frenkel holds duel U.S.-Israeli citizenship. Israeli forces were massing Monday in the West Bank village of Halhul, just north of Hebron.
Artfldgr:
Yes, I just saw that awful news, and am about to write a post on it.
Liberals are HOWLING on FB. There’s no room for any differences in opinion or action – so frightening. While I see this as a limited –while still hugely important– victory, the Left sees it as a direct and personal attack on them and ‘fairness’.
The Belmont Club commentator’s (Subotai Bahadur) coinage of TWANLOC (Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen) is in full display here.
I think the missing word of SOME is very important. HL isn’t against all artificial birth control just the abortifacient ones. Compare that to the Catholic Church’s position against ALL birth control. A soft martyrdom is coming to the US.
I see in her dissent, Justice Ginsburg linked to a list of large private companies that may now be eligible to opt out of the contraceptive mandate — number two on the list is Koch Industries. The Dems are going to have a field day with that, don’t you think?
The search for Eyal Yifrach, 19; Gilad Shaar, 16 and Naftali Frenkel, 16, who were snatched while hitchhiking, ended even as Israeli forces were conducting raids in the West Bank, where Hamas operates.
The Palis understand not to catch and release their enemies. They know if they lock people up in Gitmo, like the US does, most of them will get out and fight again, sooner or later. So they use the equal power of death to close off that path.
Or they asked the Israeli gov for too many live Pali for one dead Israeli body, and the Israelis refused the deal since these kids weren’t anything politically important like an Israeli soldier to worry about.
Ymarsakar:
Israel considers the lives of all kidnap victims, especially youngsters, something to worry about. That’s not just for humanitarian reasons, it’s for political reasons too. Israel is a very small country, and all children are considered everyone’s child.
I’ve been seeing a lot of that howling, too, Juli, and it’s really discouraging, not only because of the number of people who are reliably irrational on the subject of politics, but because some of it is coming from otherwise sensible people. Besides the war on women crap, it’s also being painted as another victory over the little people for evil corporations. And a whole lot of beside-the-point “Well if they’re such good Christians why do they buy from China?” stuff. A fair question, maybe, but irrelevant.
If they’re such good Muslims, why are they buying American goods and American weapons?
These are zombies. Don’t expect human reason out of them when you see em. Expect Brains!
With respect to venturing into a minefield:
I’d say Sibelius and Obama ventured into the mine field and SCOTUS voted to carefully tip-toe out of it.