Supreme Court: Can't make employers cover contraception

[Aksannyi]

In today's edition of "men making decisions that affect women's bodies:"

WASHINGTON (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.

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.

Highly disappointed at this one. Wrong decision.

But you know, keep on denying contraceptives to women then complaining when they get abortions.

[Kaslo]

Limited to Contraception and Closely-Held ("Family") Corporations.

[Correction]

#nowaronwomen

[Edelweiss]

In today's edition of "men making decisions that affect women's bodies:"

But you know, keep on denying contraceptives to women then complaining when they get abortions.

B-but if we can't make self-fulfilling prophecies...!

Also this isn't really gender-based, as much as it's muh archaic faith belief system and their political party's justices being terrible. Republinigs gonna Republinig.

Between this and last week's MA clinic buffer zone bubble ruling (unanimous), this is pretty shitty all around.

#nowaronwomen

No. Get the fuck out of here with that hashtag shit.

[Kaslo]

#waronhashtags

[Waraji]

Limited to Contraception and Closely-Held ("Family") Corporations.

Here we go every fucking corporation in the US submitting "Closely-Held Family Corporation" in their IRS statements. This is going to be way more trouble later on than the temporal religious backlash.

[Kaslo]

Here we go every fucking corporation in the US submitting "Closely-Held Family Corporation" in their IRS statements. This is going to be way more trouble later on than the temporal religious backlash.

This means they have to go off the stock market too, since they can't be publicly traded, meaning they likely won't.

[Correction]

No. Get the fuck out of here with that hashtag shit.

k lol

[Blubbartron]

I think it's complete bullshit as well, but let's remember that there's a difference between public and private corporations. Public corporations couldn't possibly claim that they're a "closely-held family corporation" as they literally have hundreds of thousands of co-owners (each shareholder is technically owning a piece of the company proportionate to the number of shares). Hobby Lobby is a privately-held corporation (meaning that it has a literal owner (or small group of owners) that is not necessarily determined by the holding of shares), and it can discriminate against people just as much as private schools can discriminate against people who want to teach there. They can force people to sign faith-based contracts or refuse to hire them for religious reasons. It's all perfectly legal. It's bullshit, but it's legal.

This has been your friendly reminder that the law does not determine what is right and what is wrong.

[Blubbartron]

This means they have to go off the stock market too, since they can't be publicly traded, meaning they likely won't.

http://www.hobbylobby.com/customer_s.../faq.cfm#stock

Presently, Hobby Lobby is not a publicly-traded company and does not have plans to go public in the future.

[Serra]

Saw this one coming.. doesn't make it any less disappointing.

[Egon]

I'm surprised that most liberals are sad by the ruling. Isn't it ya'lls job to look out for the little man? Christians are a minority now.

It shouldn't be wrong for Christians to actually have and act on a faith.

[Qalbert]

It should be when it perpetuates harm to others you fuckwit.

[Aksannyi]

I usually support the rights of the religious, at least to do their thing, but when the beliefs of one infringe upon the rights of another (in this case, several others), that's oppression, and it's not okay.

[Serra]

I could care less about what individuals do -- but a corporation is not a person and should not have the same rights as one, contrary to recent court rulings.

[ringthree]

Here we go every fucking corporation in the US submitting "Closely-Held Family Corporation" in their IRS statements. This is going to be way more trouble later on than the temporal religious backlash.

Doesn't corporation inherently contradict "closely-held family"? A corporation is an organization that has benefits that are recognized by the government and legal structures.

The funny thing is the view of this court. This is easily one of the most activist courts ever, but Republicans only seem to care about that when it doesn't favor them. They have essentially created a new class of citizen (corporations) and are now expanding the rights of that class to further expand the case law behind it.

[Qalbert]

Doesn't corporation inherently contradict "closely-held family"?

it also inherently contradicts "personhood" but hey, this is america

[Blubbartron]

Doesn't corporation inherently contradict "closely-held family"?

No. A corporation can consist of only one person. It's just legal nonsense, mostly paperwork.

[Salodin]

If this only effects private companies then this ruling isn't as harmful as people make it. It sucks and affects some people, but not anywhere near as broad as title suggests.

[Aksannyi]

If this only effects private companies then this ruling isn't as harmful as people make it. It sucks and affects some people, but not anywhere near as broad as title suggests.

I copied it directly from the article posted on the news website, blame 10 News.