Supremes throw out Obamacare mandate!

From  News from The Associated Press:

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.

 

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    They’ll just impose a neutral tax or fee since the ACA has been determined by the same court to be a tax. Unless now religious objections to taxation are now politically protected speech. Thanks John Roberts for making things less clear in your decisions. In general, this is one of those “not so good on balance because of all the unintended consequences due to slavish devotion to stare decisis” courts that we’ve had for the last 40 or 50 years. Oh well, better luck next time.

  • http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf Carl Vehse

    BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL., CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 13–354. Argued March 25, 2014—Decided June 30, 2014.

    The other Obamacare case, No. 13–356, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, is included in the SCOTUS opinion for Hobby Lobby.

  • Kirk

    It’s kind of a confusing ruling.

    First of all, it applies only to a very narrow type of business, a “closely held corporation.” According to the IRS, a closely held corporation:
    “Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
    Is not a personal service corporation.”

    Second, it applies only to birth control, not other religiously objectionable medical procedures like blood transfusions, mental health care, vaccines, etc. Presumably it opens the door for Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologist and others to sue to be exempted from other parts of the ACA that they object to.

    So, if you are a corporation owned by five people or fewer that employs more than 50 people and you object to contraceptive coverage, this is a great day for you.

  • paul

    The court made it clear that similar argument could not be used against paying income taxes or social security withholding. Also, as I understand it the court clarified that they were not establishing a conscience protection in hiring practices that would impact protected classes, which will shortly include sexual orientation.

  • SKPeterson

    Paul @ 4 – And that is my point. What purpose is the Constitution if there are rights and liberties here, but not there? Why is this narrow ruling regarding religious liberty a valid Constitutional ruling, while objections to other social policies and mandates that have a religious basis not? This is more of the courts making decisions that seem to have greater benefit for the lawyer class than they do for making things clear for individuals and businesses.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X