A Supreme Feud Over Birth Control: Four Blunt Points

[theHandpuppet]

I found the third point in the article most interesting.

Bloomberg Businessweek
A Supreme Feud Over Birth Control: Four Blunt Points
By Paul M. Barrett
July 07, 2014

Get ready for a long period of acrimony and confusion over whether companies and nonprofits invoking religious beliefs can evade the Obama administration’s requirement that employers providing health insurance cover birth control for female employees.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 30 in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case that closely held, for-profit corporations may invoke religious liberty to avoid compliance with the contraception-coverage mandate in the president’s 2010 health-care reform law. Then on July 3, an unspecified majority of the high court temporarily exempted a Christian college from a modest paperwork obligation imposed by the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—an obligation that the conservative majority appeared to have endorsed just four days earlier in Hobby Lobby.

Confused? No wonder. Herewith, four blunt points to clarify—at least to the degree that clarification is possible.

1. The Supremes did something strange on July 3. In a brief, unsigned order, the court said that Wheaton College of Illinois did not have to comply with an ACA provision allowing nonprofit, religiously-oriented organizations opposed to contraception to transfer the responsibility to provide free birth control to insurance companies. The court’s granting of an injunction to Wheaton was odd because in his majority opinion in Hobby Lobby, Justice Samuel Alito indicated that the very forms the college refused to fill out provided an acceptable alternative to forcing an employer to pay for contraceptive coverage....

MORE at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-07/supreme-court-feuds-over-the-hobby-lobby-birth-control-ruling

[COLGATE4]

1. Nothing is more consistent than

Conservatives' hypocrisy. It is truly bottomless.

[riderinthestorm]

2. This is a good easy to read, short, synopsis. Take a moment and read it.

Good find Handpuppet! BIG K and R!

[theHandpuppet]

3. You're welcome

The Supremes have opened up such a can of worms there's no telling where these muddled decisions might ultimately lead -- and the women of the court saw that quite clearly.

[riderinthestorm]

4. Even scarier, these are their co-workers. Just like you know the gist of your co-workers

I'm sure the three women know better than we do the mindset of the Catholic Five....

[theHandpuppet]

6. I think it's pretty obvious...

That the Neanderthal Five have absolutely no respect for the women of the court... and Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor know it.

[ohheckyeah]

5. I think the meat of this

article is:

The health reform statute specifically allows organizations like Wheaton to send paperwork to their insurance companies, which then pay for contraceptive coverage. Wheaton filed suit to avoid sending the forms because the college’s leadership believes that doing so would still facilitate women ultimately receiving birth control.

Wheaton leadership makes it clear that it is not an issue of the religious organization having to PAY for the birth control, but a desire to actually prevent women from receiving birth control. It's about control - not money. That goes beyond protecting religious beliefs - it allows for forcing beliefs on others and the Supreme Court

The high court’s July 3 decision said that instead of sending forms to insurance companies, Wheaton should notify the government directly that it objects on religious grounds to covering contraception. Presumably, the government would then turn around and tell Wheaton’s insurer, and the women in question would still receive birth-control coverage.

What a load of horse poop...why should Wheaton transfer the burden to the government instead of just sending the paperwork to the insurance company? And why did the Supreme Court grant an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION to Wheaton?

I didn't say that well, but hopefully it's comprehensible.

[theHandpuppet]

7. Yes, why did the SC even agree to hear this?

What a mess!

[ohheckyeah]

8. It shouldn't have and

that is what is so disturbing.

[theHandpuppet]

9. Who makes the decisions about which cases will be heard?

Is it a majority of the judges? The Chief Justice?

[ohheckyeah]

10. I don't know for sure.

This somewhat explains it:

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html