In an absurd ruling SCOTUS ruled that the religion of the boss is more important than the religion of all the workers:
Breaking News Stories from US and Around the World | MSN News
quote:
Justices: Can't make employers cover contraception
WASHINGTON (AP) A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that some companies with religious objections can avoid the contraceptives requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the first time the high court has declared that businesses can hold religious views under federal law.
The justices' 5-4 decision, splitting conservatives and liberals, means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under the health insurance plans of objecting companies.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, over a dissent from the four liberal justices, that forcing companies to pay for methods of women's contraception to which they object violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He said the ruling is limited and there are ways for the administration to ensure women get the birth control they want.
"President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them," Earnest said. "Today's decision jeopardizes the health of the women who are employed by these companies."
Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that Obama signed in 2010.
If you don't think this is a BIG mistake perhaps you should read
Breaking News Stories from US and Around the World | MSN News
quote:
Read Justice Ginsburg's Passionate 35-Page Dissent of Hobby Lobby Decision
Addressing the majority of her colleagues including all but one of the six men sitting on the Supreme Court Ginsburg wrote:
In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faithin these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.
The justice goes on to criticize the opinion's interpretation of the religious freedom law, writing that "until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'"
The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.
"In sum," Ginsburg adds about the free exercise claims at the heart of this case,‘[y]our right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.’
Of course the only reason this is a problem is the historic link of medical benefits to employement, won by unions to improve the lot of workers.
With Obamacare and the health care exchanges though, it should be time to break this link, pay the workers in salary what the company and the worker would pay for the company plan, and let the workers get the plan they want: no religious conflict, problem solved.
Employers don't have benefits that pay auto insurance or house insurance. AND this gets back to paying workers a living wage so they can afford house car food and insurance.
Enjoy
™ Version 4.2