posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:13 PM
The SCOTUS ruling has really been misunderstood. If the government follows the majority's suggestion to extend the current accommodations for
non-profit religious organizations to companies like Hobby Lobby, then the net effect on women will be zero. They will get the procedures they want,
and their insurance company will pick up the tab.
Don't believe it? Here's the the words from the decision itself:
In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while
ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners
have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance
coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance
companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.
Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no
reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore
conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious
liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is
And if you don't follow that. The majority makes it even clearer here:
The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely
zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing.
This is a very narrow decision that attempts to respect the religious liberty of private, closely-held companies without impacting women's health.
It has been falsely presented by both sides to suggest it's something it's not. It's pretty clear the insurance companies are behind all the
rhetoric. They are the ones who will see the real change. And though as SCOTUS suggests it probably won't provide a net burden, they don't want any
burden. Net, gross, otherwise.
edit on 16-7-2014 by Moresby because: (no reason given)