Supremes Uphold Obamacare Contraception Coverage

And the Morning After Pill, too. This is fantastic news:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday denied a request to block part of the federal health care law that requires employee health-care plans to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception pills.

Hobby Lobby Stores and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government, claiming the mandate violates the religious beliefs of its owners.

In an opinion, Sotomayor said the stores fail to satisfy the demanding legal standard for blocking the requirement on an emergency basis. She said the companies may continue their challenge to the regulations in the lower courts.

(h/t Federal Criminal Attorney Karin Porter)

  • D_C_Wilson

    Expecting the foundation of the Holy Church of Model Trains and Exact-o-Knives.

  • trgahan

    “the companies may continue their challenge to the regulations in the lower courts.”

    Those job creators at Hobby Lobby and Mardel Inc. sure know how to spend their working captial better than any private citizen. I am sure their profit margins will surge (after paying all the lawyer fees) if they win and all their female employees can be denyed contraception…it just makes Free Market sense!

  • Robert

    Actually, it wasn’t upheld, there just wasn’t sufficient reason to hold the mandate while it moves through the courts.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    The War on Religious Freedom™ continues.

    Haven’t read Sotomayor’s ruling, but here is the District Court opinion from November [Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. CIV-12-1000-HE (W.D. Okla. Nov. 19, 2012) (Heaton, U.S.D.J.)].

    Still wish one of these judges would explain that Religious Freedom™ does not include the right to require other people, including one’s employees, to live the way one’s own church wants.

    • muselet

      Un-American! Employers are Makers, employees are Takers! Employees are their employers’ property and everyone knows owners can do whatever they want with their property! Serfdom is good enough for those freeloading moochers!

      Seriously, though, a judge explaining what the First Amendment means would be nice, but whoever did so would be the personal recipient of an emphatic “Nuh-uh!” from Antonin Scalia, and no District judge wants to be named and shamed in a Supreme Court opinion. Judge Heaton sidled right up to saying it (“Hobby Lobby and Mardel, secular, for-profit corporations, do not have free exercise rights. The Greens do have such rights, but are unlikely to prevail as to their constitutional claims because the preventive care coverage regulations they challenge are neutral laws of general applicability which are rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective.”), but didn’t dope-slap the plaintiffs.



      • IrishGrrrl

        Also, too, the less the judge puts into their decision, the less there is for the Supreme Court a-holes to seize upon for a reversal. I’m sure not wanting to get shamed is part of it, but not wanting to give the right-wing loons more ammo has to be a big part of it too.

  • IrishGrrrl