[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by buggyone

A bad decision is still a bad decision. Anyhow, let's just hope this does not morph into some For Profit Corporations getting exclusions on vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health care,or preventive healthcare.

I don't think those should be excluded. Are we in agreement?

Buggyone - I do not see this as a bad decision. I see Justice Ginsberg as an alarmist reaching for straws because she has nothing solid upon which to base her fantasy assumptions. Has she NOT, at her age and status in life learned what happens when one assumes?

Again I refer to the exact words in the decision:
"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discriminationas a religious practice."

I count on the court to abide by those words. Of course, remembering some of the actions of the "Warren" Court can send shivers up and down my spine!