It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Supreme Court will hear the most high-profile case, filed by the Christian-owned craft supply chain Hobby Lobby, as well as Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, a case filed by a Pennsylvania-based furniture company owned by a family of Mennonites. The cases will be heard together, likely in March 2014, with a decision expected in June.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
"Should the court decide that this service is something bosses can decide for their employees, what else can bosses decide?" said Judy Waxman, vice president of health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "Can they decide they don't want to cover vaccines or HIV medications? Can they say, 'I don't believe in these kinds of wage and hour rules?' To say, 'Yes, a corporation can impose its religion on employees' -- that can have very far-reaching implications."
The health care law puts women and families in control of their health care by covering vital preventive care, like cancer screenings and birth control, free of charge. Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider a legal challenge to the health care law’s requirement that for-profit corporations include birth control coverage in insurance available to their employees. We believe this requirement is lawful and essential to women’s health and are confident the Supreme Court will agree..................
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".
Griswold v. Connecticut involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception."[2] Although the law was passed in 1879, the statute was almost never enforced.
Attempts had been made to test the constitutionality of the law; however, the challenges failed on technical grounds. In Tileston v. Ullman (1943), a doctor and mother challenged the statute on the grounds that a ban on contraception could, in certain sexual situations, threaten the lives and well-being of patients.
en.wikipedia.org...
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), is an important United States Supreme Court case that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples and, by implication, the right of unmarried couples to engage in potentially nonprocreative sexual intercourse (though not the right of unmarried people to engage in any type of sexual intercourse).
en.wikipedia.org...
Contraceptive Use in the United States:
• More than 99% of women aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.
www.guttmacher.org...
Aviane, cash prices ranging from $20 to $45 for a monthly pack
Gianvi, $45 to $74
Loestrin 24FE, $48 to $116
Lutera, $19 to $40
Ocella, $40 to $80
Ortho-Tri-Cyclen Lo 28, $37 to $162
Tri-Nessa 28, $16 to $49
Tri-Sprintec 28, $12 to $49
Yasmin-28, $80 to $105
Yaz-28, $65 to $130
finance.yahoo.com...
Remember that this also applies to Unions, but I hear no one exclaiming "Unions aren't people."
Though the Court ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as natural persons regarding independent political expenditures, the same corporations still do not have the same panoply of rights as natural persons, even after Citizens United. Corporations and unions are still precluded from making donations directly to candidates’ campaigns. And Citizens United left intact systemic safeguards, namely the FEC’s strict disclosure and reporting requirements.
If the speakers here were not corporations, no one would suggest that the State could silence their proposed speech. It is the type of speech indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual. The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.
One of the two cases, perhaps the more famous, is Hobby Lobby. I haven't looked at the other case, but for Hobby Lobby, you've got it backwards, maybe a typo.
We're not talking about abortion, here. We're talking about contraception. Contraception is the best method of keeping abortion numbers low.
For the record: Hobby Lobby’s issue is specifically with emergency contraception and other procedures that they consider to be abortifacients, not preventative birth control. . . . [It's not true] that the company wants to not pay for the Pill; because they were perfectly happy to pay for oral contraceptives now.
You're certainly right that Obamacare (euphemistically known as the Affordable Care Act) is the law. I'm surprised you stress that. The reason the case is being appealed is because at least one Circuit Court has ruled that the particular provision involved is unconstitutional, and the Constitution is also the law.
The Affordable Care Act is law. It mandates that employers provide health insurance policies with birth control coverage for women. The question is should religious exceptions to the LAW to extended to for profit corporations.
Some people think war is wrong, should they be able to NOT pay taxes that fund wars?
For the record: Hobby Lobby’s issue is specifically with emergency contraception and other procedures that they consider to be abortifacients, not preventative birth control. . . . [It's not true] that the company wants to not pay for the Pill; because they were perfectly happy to pay for oral contraceptives now.
Some people think war is wrong, should they be able to NOT pay taxes that fund wars?
This a not a tax, collected by the government and going into the general fund. It is an order that individuals must begin doing something they never had to before, and which at least one Circuit Court believes, violates their fundamental religious beliefs.
No, it isn't really beside the point.