l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 WSJ
WSJ LIVE
MARKETWATCH
BARRON'S
Portfolio
DJX
MORE
Search
The Wall Street Journal
rMenu
U.S.
David's Journalc
Live Help
Upgrade Your Account: Subscribe Now »
World Cup 2014 goal alerts
FRA2vsNGA0Final GERvsALG4 pm ET todayRound of 16 ARGvsSUI12 pm ET
tomorrowRound of 16 BELvsUSA4 pm ET tomorrowRound of 16
more
Politics and Policy
Supreme Court Makes Religious Exception to Health-Care Law
High Court Sides With Employers Who Said Providing Contraceptives Violated
Their Beliefs
Email
Print
918 Comments
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
smaller
Larger
By
Jess Bravin and
Louise Radnofsky
connect
Updated June 30, 2014 2:38 p.m. ET
The U.S. Supreme Court said "closely held" companies can, on religious
grounds, opt out of covering employees' contraception costs in health-care
plans. WSJ's Ashby Jones and George Mason University professor Ilya Somin
discuss on Lunch Break with Tanya Rivero. Photo: Getty
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in a 5-4 split said "closely
held" companies can on religious grounds opt out of a federal health-care
law requirement that companies provide contraception coverage to employees,
carving another piece from President Barack Obama's signature domestic
achievement.
In a ruling by Justice Samuel Alito, the court's five conservative justices
wrote that private companies, such as Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., can't be
forced to provide contraceptive health services that violate their owner's
religious beliefs.
The case was the first challenge to the Affordable Care Act to reach the
Supreme Court since 2012, when the justices upheld most of the health-care
overhaul against a constitutional challenge.
A demonstrator supporting contraceptive rights, left, shoves his poster in
the face of a Hobby Lobby supporter after the ruling outside the U.S.
Supreme Court in Washington on Monday. Reuters
The owners of Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma City arts-and-crafts chain owned by
founder David Green and his evangelical Christian family, along with the
Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania
cabinetmaker, challenged the heath-law's requirement that health plans—
including those provided through most employers—cover Food and Drug
Administration-approved contraceptives without charging copayments.
Read the Full Supreme Court Decision
Share Your Reaction to Court's Ruling
White House: Ruling Jeopardizes Women's Health
Debate Ignited on Religious Freedom Law
Firms Move to Limit Birth-Control Coverage
Hobby Lobby Ruling Splits Congress
Potential 2016 Candidates React to Ruling
Another High Court Setback for Obama
What Does 'Closely Held'
Hobby Lobby CEO, Backers Cheer Ruling
Legal Experts React to Decision
Key Excerpts from Alito's Opinion
Key Excerpts From Ginsburg's Dissent
Think Tank: The Supreme Court and the Court of Public Opinion
Sign Up: Get Capital Journal Daybreak
Justice Alito framed the ruling as "very specific" to the case before the
court, and argued that no women would be burdened with the costs of
contraceptives because their employers objected.
Instead, he suggested that the Obama administration extend to for-profit
companies the same accommodation it had made to religiously affiliated
nonprofits that object to contraception: requiring that insurers provide
contraceptives without charging premiums to employers or copayments to
individuals.
The White House said Monday that the decision would jeopardize the health of
women. "We believe that the owners of for-profit companies should not be
allowed to assert their personal religious views to deny their employees
federally mandated benefits," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.
Mr. Earnest said the White House is still assessing the decision and its
legal implications, but hecalled on Congress to ensure that women affected
by the ruling will have the same health coverage as everyone else.
Justice Alito declined to draw a bright line between individuals and
corporations when it came to fundamental rights.
"A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to
achieve desired ends," he wrote. "And protecting the free-exercise rights of
corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious
liberty of the humans who own and control those companies."
Mardel Christian & Education Stores Inc. is owned by the family that
controls Hobby Lobby.
The Department of Health and Human Services "has provided no reason why the
same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit
corporations have similar religious objections," Justice Alito wrote. He was
joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony
Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
After the decision Monday, Hobby Lobby's Mr. Green said he thanked the
family for remaining in unison against the contraception requirement. "There
is a joy of being delivered from something we really think should not have
been for us."
"This is an exhilarating victory for religious freedom," said Russell D.
Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious
Liberty Commission. "As a Baptist, I am encouraged that our ancestors'
struggle for the First Amendment has been vindicated."
Women's rights groups who oppose today's verdict said the ruling was a blow
to women's contraceptive rights that will give corporate executives the
ability to impose their beliefs on female employees. "Bosses should stick to
what they know best—the board room and the bottom line—and stay out of
the bedroom and the exam room," said Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the
National Women's Law Center.
While the ruling focused on family-owned, privately held corporations, women
's rights groups said they fear other corporations will try to use the
decision to refuse contraception coverage. "They've opened a Pandora's box,
and we don't know where that will lead," said Ilyse Hogue, president of
NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Enlarge Image
cat
Hobby Lobby supporters react to the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Monday.
Getty Images
Enlarge Image
cat
Demonstrators in support of abortion and contraceptive rights chant after
the Hobby Lobby ruling outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. REUTERS
Hobby Lobby and other companies said their religions consider certain birth-
control methods immoral, and therefore they weren't obliged to help provide
them under a 1993 statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That law
requires federal laws to accommodate individuals' religious beliefs unless
there is a compelling interest at stake that can't be attained through other
means.
The Supreme Court's majority agreed, citing the religious freedom law in
their decision.
The government had maintained the 1993 law doesn't apply to for-profit
companies, and lower courts were split on the question.
Behind the challengers are dozens of other religious business owners who say
they have been waiting on the court's decision to shape their future health
-coverage offerings to workers.
Forty for-profit companies have won injunctions shielding them from
enforcement of the provision while challenges are under court review.
Corporations in the Courts
It's not uncommon for courts to consider when corporations have rights akin
to those of individuals. Here are a few recent examples:
Electioneering—The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC,
expanding the free-speech rights of corporations, lifted a longstanding ban
on political spending by corporations in the run-up to Election Day.
Privacy—The high court in 2011 rejected a claim by AT&T Inc. that it
enjoyed personal privacy rights under the Freedom of Information Act. The
company was seeking to block the release of potentially embarrassing
documents related to a Federal Communications Commission probe.
Discrimination—Several U.S. appeals courts have ruled corporations can
bring claims for racial discrimination, a fact noted by Chief Justice John
Roberts during the Hobby Lobby oral arguments.
The decision was anticipated not only for its effect on the Affordable Care
Act, but as a signal of how far the Supreme Court would permit individuals
and organizations to except themselves from complying with laws they find
objectionable on religious grounds.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking for the liberal dissenters, stressed
her objection by reading the main dissent from the bench.
Justice Ginsburg said the 1993 religious-freedom law wasn't intended to
apply to for-profit corporations and that the court never before had granted
them religious exemptions from complying with general laws. She said that
while religious nonprofits generally employ members of the same "community
of believers," for-profit employers must hire without regard to religious
affiliation.
The dissent warned that the decision opened the door to a variety of
challenges to the Affordable Care Act by employers whose owners might cite
religious object to other medical services, such as blood transfusions,
vaccinations "or medications derived from pigs."
She criticized the majority's suggested coverage solution, writing it
effectively passed the cost of coverage to taxpayers. "Where is the stopping
point to the 'let the government pay' solution?" she wrote.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined all or part
of Justice Ginsburg's dissent. | m********8
发帖数: 7463 | 2 http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/USANews/31566467.html
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: WSJ
: WSJ LIVE
: MARKETWATCH
: BARRON'S
: Portfolio
: DJX
: MORE
: Search
: The Wall Street Journal
: rMenu
| w****r
发帖数: 15252 | 3 这个我支持， you screw up your life, you pay it yourself, company has no
obligation | n****l
发帖数: 1739 | 4 this does not make any sense. it opens a dangerous door for religious
beliefs to be above the law. | n****l
发帖数: 1739 | 5 obama maybe an asshole, but the supreme court is just a fart.
【在 n****l 的大作中提到】
: this does not make any sense. it opens a dangerous door for religious
: beliefs to be above the law.
| d*******p
发帖数: 2525 | 6 why should other people pay for your birth control? you can't afford a
condom or you don't want to use but want other people pay the price?
【在 n****l 的大作中提到】
: this does not make any sense. it opens a dangerous door for religious
: beliefs to be above the law.
| n****l
发帖数: 1739 | 7 what are you talking about? what birth control? this stupid case has
far wider implications than birth control.
【在 d*******p 的大作中提到】
: why should other people pay for your birth control? you can't afford a
: condom or you don't want to use but want other people pay the price?
| z*****a
发帖数: 9790 | 8 你先给obama care违宪洗洗地
【在 n****l 的大作中提到】
: this does not make any sense. it opens a dangerous door for religious
: beliefs to be above the law.
| l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 9 你不看细节的嘛?
其实不是contracpetion,而是堕胎,那个公司只是反对10几种避孕方法里面的4种,就是
和堕胎有关的.公司员工还可以选择其他10多种避孕的方法,这个是公司保险cover的.
【在 n****l 的大作中提到】
: obama maybe an asshole, but the supreme court is just a fart.
|
|
