[url=http://www.vox.com/2014/6/30/5856926/hobby-lobby-curtainraiser]The Supreme Court narrowed Obamacare's requirement that all employer-sponsored health insurance cover birth control, ruling that "closely-held corporations" did not have to comply with the regulation.[/url]
[quote]In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the court ruled 5-4 that it will allow some business owners to exclude birth control from their insurance plans if coverage would violate their religious beliefs.
The decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, found that "closely-held corporations" — defined by the Internal Revenue Service as those where five or fewer individuals own a majority of the company's stock — do not have to include birth control in the health insurance package they offer workers.[/quote]
Based on the IRS's definition, closely-held businesses make up about [url=http://www.vox.com/2014/6/30/5857084/heres-what-a-closely-held-corporation-is/in/5621013]90% of companies in the US.[/url]
[b]Edit:[/b]
Here is the [url=http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014?Page=0]SCOTUS live blog[/url] from the event and the [url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf]PDF of the ruling.[/url] Interestingly enough, Justice Samuel Alito seems to have given the president some advice on how to implement coverage of birth control.
[quote][The government] could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS's stated interests.[/quote]
Also, Time magazine has [url=http://time.com/2940952/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-obamacare-ruling/]4 Reasons the Supreme Court Contraception Ruling Means Less Than You Think[/url]:
[quote]1. The ruling only applies to “closely held” corporations
2. Women who work for Hobby Lobby had, and still have, full insurance coverage for most types of birth control
3. Employees of Hobby Lobby may still be able to get 100% insurance coverage for all types of birth control—it just won’t be paid for by the company
4. The court appeared to rule out using the Hobby Lobby decision to argue in the future that employers can object to covering drugs, devices, treatments and procedures not related to birth control[/quote]
[b]Edit 2:[/b]
[url=http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gob_huge_mistake_arrested_development.gif]MFW I can't see half the posts in this thread because of the people I've muted[/url]
-
1 回复Excellent! I don't think contraception is at all immoral, but this is a case where no one is forcing the employee to work for a company that doesn't give full health care.
-
2 回复Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to refuse to pay for vaccinations or transplants of any kind?
-
12 回复由defenderofgo编辑: 6/30/2014 4:29:43 PMA business can now claim that hiring LGBT people goes against their religion. If you don't think that will happen, [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/arizona-pols-vote-business-owners-refuse-service-gays-article-1.1647130]a few months ago Arizona tried to pass a bill that allowed business owners to claim religious right so they don't have to serve LGBT people.[/url]
-
3 回复So the government has less control over private business, Ohhhh how the liberals are gonna rage.
-
1 回复Condoms Aren't that expensive so I don't really care. I would want my job to pay for it tho. That would be cool
-
62 回复由AnAverageGamer编辑: 6/30/2014 6:13:20 PMAnd unwanted pregnancy rates and abortion rates will rise as a result. Edit to clarify what I posted overly hastily: unwanted pregnancy rates and abortion rates will be higher than they would have been had the SCOTUS ruled that birth control should be covered by health insurance.
-
1 回复
-
48 回复由MoReCoWbELLx2x1编辑: 6/30/2014 3:28:05 PMGood, although they should be able to not provide it even without a religious purpose. I shouldn't have to pay for my workers to have safe sex. And before someone pulls a straw and says something along the lines of "birth control is a part of a good healthcare plan". Sex isn't a necessity for anyone, so it's not needed.
-
16 回复Are erectile dysfunction medications still covered, though? If so, it's a blatant conflict.
-
2 回复
-
15 回复I don't understand how they reached this conclusion. Birth control, especially for women, has actual medical uses besides preventing pregnancy. How is that any different than a medication you would be prescribed, or a treatment you might need for an illness or disease? I'd be covered for migraine medication to ease the pain and discomfort of regular migraines, but I wouldn't be covered for birth control that eases the pain and discomfort of menstruation. What.
-
4 回复由Gaara444编辑: 6/30/2014 4:17:23 PMGood. Sandra Fluke is a sexist liar that purposely distorts the language in order to appeal to emotions. A corporation refusing to pay for your birth control is NOT denying your access to birth control, just because someone refuses to pay for the services you want does not mean they are denying you access to them. If I wanted you to buy me dinner, and you refused, you are not denying me access to dinner. This is NOT a difficult concept.
-
17 回复Good, glad they stick by what the IRS has defined. Supreme court is the last hope left for this country
-
1 回复Do you know if they're compensating for not having birth control with something else? Like dental or something. Or did they just take that out and that's it.
-
4 回复Great. I still don't go to Hobby Lobby, so it's not going to affect me, and I'm not looking to get a job in retail, so I could care even less. But hey, at least we're one step closer to pure Capitalism, right? You know, the type of economy that people tried to change back in the late 1800's to the early 1900's, right? It's definitely not like we're regressing back. Actually, I'd like to know about the opinions of people outside of America. I wonder how they feel about this.
-
2 回复My favorite thing about this entire debate is that everyone keeps talking about religion and their "view"... c'mon, just say $money$... no one is fooling anyone.