From a government mandated health care law, right? Mandating what must be covered, is that not so? So then there really is no negotiating of plans, like we would have here in Canada.
My only (original) point being that having contraceptives not covered by employee health plans is something rather commonplace north of the border. Then again, our Universal Healthcare doesn't cover prescriptions of any kind either. So we're basically in the exact same boat, more or less, except that our government hasn't imposed what coverage is mandatory for private health care plans to provide. So where's the indignation here then? I'm sure there are a number of organizations and business endeavours in Canada that choose to offer a plan that doesn't include contraceptives for a variety of reasons, how come no one is screaming about that if it's such an imposition and an affront on individuals?
I am sure there are.
This is not about refusing birth control.
My point was a company in the market place using their religious beliefs, then becoming exempt from a law passed.
Whether people agree or not, no sweat.
Just as the Govt has no business in religion, Religious beliefs that run counter to laws and regulation, either live with it or stay out of the market.
And as we have seen, in their initial ruling the SC stated one thing, then did the opposite in a ruling passed the other day.
I already posted the link on that.
Here it is
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/u...n-rule-for-christian-college.html?ref=us&_r=0
WASHINGTON — In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.
The decision temporarily exempts a Christian college from part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. The order, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the 5-to-4 decision on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.
“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”
The court’s action, she added, even “undermines confidence in this institution.”
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
Monday’s decision and the order on Thursday were dual blows to the Obama administration’s efforts to provide contraception coverage, said Walter Dellinger, who was acting United States solicitor general in the Clinton administration.
