Hobby Lobby: the Supreme Court's Decision
 

ANY type or just the four claimed to potentially result in abortion? They are still covering 16 of the 20 contraceptive methods required by the ACA. Are they not?

From what I know, the decision was very limited, in that it only applies to "for profit companies" with private ownership (i.e. family or limited ownership). That seems appropriate as a freedom of religion exception for individuals and not the general public (public companies).

I think you are right-not sure on the details, but heard that they were covering the majority of the birth control, with the exception of the meds considered abortion drugs, or the morning after pills, etc.

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control
So much for Justice Alito's "narrow" opinion.
—By Patrick Caldwell | Wed Jul. 2, 2014 8:32 PM EDT

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-contraception

Good decision - If we had one more liberal judge the results would have been very different. It always alarms me that 9 supposedly intelligent judges seem to vote ideologically instead of legally. So our Supreme Court decisions are political and not based on the rule of the Constitution. Saddens me.

Depends on if you think corporations are people....and religious people at that.

2010 Supreme Court decision said corporations can be considered as an individual.

Good decision. Hobby a Lobby was againstpaying for 4 abortive contraception drugs.

five catholic supreme court judges decided that the concerns of a corporation which holds a religious view which happens to be exactly the view of the catholic church must be respected. However these same five catholic judges went out of their way to say that the religious views of others which are not shared by the catholic church are specifically not included in their decision.. transfusions and vaccination are supported by the catholic church but not be some very common faiths in this country. the majority went out of its way to state that those other religions objections don't count. So this was not a decision based on freedom of religion but rather another decision based on the personal religion of the judges. The exact opposite of what separation of church and state is supposed to represent.

Great idea to have "appeals court rehear the cases in light of the Hobby Lobby decision." Gives the appeals court the opportunity to confirm their initial decision because the cases are so much more broad and lack the "numerous qualifiers" that the Hobby Lobby case met.

And Hobby Lobby has no problem buying scads of goods from China, a country with forced birth control and sometimes forced abortion, to the point that many baby girls are abandoned by the side of the road to die because they were girls and not boys.

How horribly hypocritical. It has nothing to do with religion, in my opinion. The bottom line is money. They don't want to pay for this stuff, and they don't care that the supreme court put the onus of the cost back on the insurance companies, who will now raise premiums to employees to cover the cost.

There's frequently something unethical behind the closed doors of these so-called religious corporations. They have the same lawyers as everyone else.

CFrance -
How will insurance companies increase premiums to cover the cost of products that will not be covered in the employee's insurance plan?

Maybe it is too late for me to be up and trying to figure that out. Don't rush to explain - I'm gonna head to bed! C'yall l8r!

I'll find it and let you know tomorrow, NJBB. I read it in the news or heard it on NPR.

I find it extremely frightening. What next -- privately held corporations will once again be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, people of color, women, etc.? Oh,wait, this ruling does allow a company to discriminate against women since birth control is not a male issue.