Start A Petition

Supreme Court Will Take Up Controversial Obamacare Provision on Contraception

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: government, healthcare, Birth Control, Obama, SupremeCourt, women, rights )

- 2059 days ago -
By Pete Williams, NBC News Justice Correspondent The Supreme Court, taking up a controversial provision of Obamacare, agreed Tuesday to consider whether a company can refuse to provide contraceptive care to female employees on the grounds that doing so-


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Dee C (229)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 10:37 am
Itís a question the Supreme Court has never answered: Does a for-profit company have the right to object to a law on religious grounds?

ďThis case presents, front and center for the justices to decide, a question thatís been open for a long time: Do companies, not just people and churches, have religious freedom?Ē said Tom Goldstein, a Supreme Court expert and publisher of the SCOTUSblog website.

Read more at site..

Arielle S (313)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 10:58 am
I have to wonder if these same companies will refuse to pay for condoms and Viagra?

Aletta Kraan (146)
Wednesday November 27, 2013, 6:46 pm
Noted , thanks !

Louise D (44)
Friday November 29, 2013, 2:02 am
The use of religion to deny a right is just an excuse to descriminate nothing more and nothing else. The whole use of religion in politics these days only goes to show that religion has no place in politics. Given the freak show of the last Republican presidental candidates pandering to religious groups with increasingly insane comments that only a few years ago would of been laughed out of the place. America is supposed to be a civilized country yet the Conservatives increasingly show how out of step they are again and again especially when it comes to women's rights. It is just a petty attempt to keep women down.

Rose Becke (141)
Friday November 29, 2013, 2:11 am
I agree with Louise

Past Member (0)
Friday November 29, 2013, 4:25 am
They are there to provide a service to the citizens/taxpayers/state. That's that!

I totally agree with you Louise D.

Billie Wills (37)
Friday November 29, 2013, 4:48 am
These companies are owned by people who have individual religious beliefs and when you join these companies you pretty much know what these beliefs are & the principles upon which the companies are built. If you don't like the foundations upon which these companies are built , then go elsewhere to find employment.I should not have to suspend my beliefs to accommodate your beliefs.

cecily w (0)
Friday November 29, 2013, 6:02 am
I'm coming in from a different angle. 50% of US pregnancies are unintended. US population: 1960=180 million; 1993=254 million; 2013=closing in on 317 million; 2050 (projected)=400 million. US births have exceeded US deaths by 1.5 million most years since 1946. This situation is already wreaking havoc with our collective quality of life. The need for contraception is a legitimate public health issue.

US for-profit businesses--regardless of the presence or absence of religious dogma--operate under an umbrella of protective regulations at both the federal and state levels. These regulations include--but are not limited to--classification and taxation. Since they take advantage of these protective regulations, they should not be exempt from any requirements.

Dee C (229)
Friday November 29, 2013, 6:21 am
Great comment everyone..

Health and religion have no place in the same matter..If one chooses due to their own religion and in their choice for themselves..that is fine..but to push your religious ideas onto others to the extent where you jeopardize one's health is completely another matter..And it is wrong..


lee e (114)
Friday November 29, 2013, 10:09 am
Billie Willis - yes individuals work within corporations, and yes most corporations are pretty obvious about where they might stand, However that does NOT allow them either not to hire (jobs are precious commodities these days), and it's none of the business of the individuals within a corporation to know how their insurance dollars are being used - it's None of their business - and they have NO right to think that because of their religious stand they can dictate the morals of any other individual within their employ!

Roger G (148)
Friday November 29, 2013, 12:03 pm
noted, thanks

Phil P (94)
Friday November 29, 2013, 1:03 pm
The Supreme SCROTUMS get stupider and stupider with each passing day. They should just let the corporations and religious fanatics write their ruling and just sign it.

Lois Jordan (63)
Friday November 29, 2013, 1:07 pm
Noted. Thanks, Dee. Yes, this is a crucial decision. I can only hope that common sense will prevail---that of the separation of church & state. That will be the only sensible decision. If religious dictates are allowed, this will open up a Pandora's box with various religions claiming exemptions to everything under the sun. I think Hobby Lobby & others are going to be greatly disappointed that they'll have to abide by the law. I've already shown my disapproval to companies like this by never shopping there.

Joanne Dixon (37)
Friday November 29, 2013, 5:20 pm
If the GOP hadn't been so insistent on turning goernment into a three ring circus, it might have occurred to enough people to get it into the law to tie it to Viagra - i.e., any employer that wants to not cover contraception may do so, but then that employer may not cover Viagra. Wouldn't that be fun.

Rajee Seetharam (138)
Saturday November 30, 2013, 3:08 am
Noted with thanks

James Maynard (84)
Saturday November 30, 2013, 2:52 pm
This is why medical care has no business
in the hands of religious fanatics. We
need Medicare for All - Now!

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 1, 2013, 6:44 am
I have no problem at all with the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." which bans the establishment of a state religion. A state religion is a powerful tool of political repression (look at how Shariah is used). In a world with widely held religious beliefs, the first amendment's protections remain valid. In any case, it would have been more fun to debate the facts, but it seems no one has time to read the article (it was so long....).

Past Member (0)
Monday December 2, 2013, 8:05 am
Lee E, do you mind if I wait for the Supreme Court to decide. Once you decided decided it is okay not to hire someone that smokes you kind of supported all kind of things you might not have meant to. Under current guidelines established by a 2002 executive order (and currently maintained), religious organizations that receive federal funding to engage in community services are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring or employing staff, even if the individualís job is not related to core religious functions. I think people are confusing what is properly called "accommodations" in the law. Thing is, if it becomes easier for companies to decouple insurance they probably will do - perhaps that is not a bad thing.

Athena F (131)
Wednesday December 4, 2013, 2:16 am
thank you
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.