Supreme Court sends Obamacare case back to lower court

[jpak]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court on Monday avoided issuing a major ruling on a challenge brought by religiously affiliated non-profit groups to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, wrote that they were not deciding the case on the merits but instead sent the case back down to the lower courts for opposing parties to work out a compromise.

This was the fourth time the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration, and the second case challenging the contraception mandate. In 2014, the Court ruled in favor of closely held for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby that objected to providing certain contraceptives.

The challenge to Obamacare's contraceptive mandate came from religiously affiliated non-profit groups, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, who object to having to provide "abortifacients and contraceptives" to their employees.

<more>

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/16/politics/supreme-court-obamacare-contraceptive-mandate/

[elleng]

12. Happens all the time,

sending cases back to lower courts for more info/analysis.

[procon]

2. If the Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion

Then why are religious organizations, or religious affiliated business treated differently than everyone else? They should have the same plusses and minuses that affect the rest of us, not be given preferential carve outs that unfairly enriches them at the expense of everyone else.

Religious institutions got out of providing full medical coverage for their female staff and employees, and now ancillary religious groups want the same special perk. This must save religious corporations millions in reduced insurance costs, but for the women who still need contraceptive prescriptions, it means they have to either pay out of pocket or find medical services through state agencies or some cash strapped community NGO. That means we, the taxpayers, are schlepping the bill for these religious tightwads can add more shekels to their coffers at our expense.

[Igel]

4. How does freedom of conscience = government's imposing religion.

In wartime conscientious objectors are usually granted a waiver. Perhaps they don't serve; perhaps they serve in non-military roles.

By letting them off the hook to follow the dictates of their religion, as was often the case, this imposed a burden on others. If 50 people are exempted, it means 50 others are going to be called on to replace them. This wasn't a problem. It's not a large burden on society (although arguably it is a large burden on the replacements, who might otherwise not be at the front lines and shot at).

Amerindians are allowed to use otherwise banned substances in their religious rites. This is perceived as an injustice by those who would want to use those same substances. Yet that's what's allowed.


It's a case of distinguishing between the government *allowing* and the government *requiring." Rights, both positive and negative, always impose some burden. In most cases, the burden is either purely emotional (freedom of speech) or as far as the general population goes minimal (conscientious objectors).

[procon]

7. Those who are negatively affected when the religious views of others are forced

on them must have their own "freedom of conscience" rights, but they are being ignored in favor of government supported religions. Especially since these are health issues that primarily affect women and have an adverse impact on their lives and their livelihood, why are they being treated like second class citizens?

[Yo_Mama]

13. It also prohibits the government from restricting the free exercise of religion

It is very hard to see how forcing a bunch of Catholic nuns to pay for medical interventions that they consider murder is constitutional.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Here's a simple compromise ...

Since that it is part of the employee's compensation, let the employee decide if s/he wants contraception coverage or not.

[christx30]

5. I'd rather have it where a woman could

choose to forgo contraception coverage in favor of something that might be a priority for her. Like my wife would get her diabetes treatments instead of birth control pills (which she can't take, because of her diabetes).

[procon]

8. Why should women be forced to make either/or decisions when men don't?

If men need their Viagra or any other pharmaceutical boost or medical device take enables them to have sex, there's no problem whatsoever in getting those things. Only women have to face the humiliation of being treated as a lesser being, subject to the religious taboos and restrictions of a male dominant religious authority with an added slapdown coming from the courts.

[christx30]

10. Why should my wife have to pay

$150 per month for a medication for diabetes, but get birth control for free. I've spent the last 10 days in the hospital with her because of an infection that was caused because we can't afford the meds she needs. Two operations, and possible congestive heart failure, she nearly died.
But birth control? That's free. Or if you have to pay for it yourself, it's like $10 per month.

[procon]

11. Insurance polices are a packaged deals.

I'm sorry for your poor wife, diabetes is a tough illness for everyone involved. I don't have any knowledge for your particular plan, but ether you or your employer chose (if there even was a choice) the coverage you have. Your out of pocket costs are related to what kind of coverage you bought, not the birth control and other things now provided free. Blame it on the for profit healthcare system we're stuck with, and despite the incremental changes implemented under ACA, real improvement wont happen until healthcare become a national program like Medicare.

[merrily]

6. What the hell? (no pun intended).

[trudyco]

9. OK, but then the women employees get reimbursed that amount

on their premiums. This is for all employees with females of bearing age, multiplied by how many of them are in the family.

If it's purely a religious thing and not monetary they would have no problem with that, right?