Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNarrow decision? Hobby Lobby decision likely to open a legal floodgate
When the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain owned by a Southern Baptist family, could opt out of the Affordable Care Acts mandate to cover specific types of contraception for employees, it may well have set in motion a raft of similar challenges. The language of conservative Justice Samuel Alitos majority opinion may have sounded narrow--it confined the decision to closely held businesses--but the precedent it set is likely not.
The ruling only applied to four types of contraception: the morning-after pills Ella and Plan B, and two intrauterine devices (IUDs), referred to by people who object to them as abortifacients. The ACAs contraception mandate stipulates sixteen forms of contraception must be provided, so Hobby Lobby will still have to provide twelve other contraceptive methods to their employees. But Lyle Denniston of SCOTUS Blog says all sixteen contraceptives may be easy targets for future cases.
Depending upon how lower courts now interpret the Hobby Lobby decision, companies that fit within the Courts closely held company bracket and offer religious objections could be spared from having to provide any of those services through their employee health plans, Denniston wrote.
MORE HERE: http://wonkynewsnerd.com/hobby-lobby-decision-likely-open-legal-floodgate/
The ruling only applied to four types of contraception: the morning-after pills Ella and Plan B, and two intrauterine devices (IUDs), referred to by people who object to them as abortifacients. The ACAs contraception mandate stipulates sixteen forms of contraception must be provided, so Hobby Lobby will still have to provide twelve other contraceptive methods to their employees. But Lyle Denniston of SCOTUS Blog says all sixteen contraceptives may be easy targets for future cases.
Depending upon how lower courts now interpret the Hobby Lobby decision, companies that fit within the Courts closely held company bracket and offer religious objections could be spared from having to provide any of those services through their employee health plans, Denniston wrote.
MORE HERE: http://wonkynewsnerd.com/hobby-lobby-decision-likely-open-legal-floodgate/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 743 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Narrow decision? Hobby Lobby decision likely to open a legal floodgate (Original Post)
LuckyTheDog
Jul 2014
OP
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)1. I want to become a sole corporation....
I have a firm religious aversion to not paying taxes to Caesar.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)2. The USSCt made clear the next day
that this ruling applies to all contraceptives, not just the four mentioned in the original decision. The 'it doesn't apply to 16' is a myth.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)3. Thank you
Is it really so hard to fact check before publishing?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)4. The media all ran, almost falling down in their haste
to convince the public that the decision 'really wasn't so bad, no big deal, only affects 4 contraceptive methods'. So much so that the USSCt published their clarification the very next day, making clear to all that, no, they really meant all forms of contraception.
LiberalLoner
(9,761 posts)5. Since health insurance is part of our compensation,
Does this mean corporations can also dictate what we are allowed to buy with our other compensation (wages)?