Supreme Court to hear challenge to Obamacare: contraceptive coverage

[No Elephants]

Do employers who/that have religious objections to providing health insurance that covers contraception, as Obamacare requires?


I cannnot even begin to guess what the Supremes will do with this one.

Story:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/26/21627485-supreme-court-will-take-up-controversial-obamacare-provision-on-contraception

Because of a lot of sloppy reporting, the public got the general impression that the SCOTUS "upheld Obamacare." No, that is not what the Court did.

So far, the only things that the Court has even been asked to decide about the massive Obamacare law have been the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion and, now the contraceptive provision. The only case decided so far held that the individual mandate was constitutional and attempting to "encourage" states to expand Medicaid by withholding all Medicaid funds absent expansion was unconstitutional. So, so far, the SCOTUS has upheld only the individual mandate, IMO, the very worst part of Obamacare.

In the same decision as they upheld the individual mandate, they struck down "encouraging" states to expand Medicaid by cutting off all federal Medicaid funds unless the state chose expansion. (Worst SCOTUS decision since the New Deal strike downs, IMO. Maybe worst SCOTUS decision ever.)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-that-states-have-choice-whether-to-join-medicaid-expansion/

httpa

Offhand, I cannot recall a decision that prevents feds from using federal aid to states as Congress chooses, although I am not familiar with the facts of all the cases of the New Deal era, before FDR threatened to increase the size of the Court. The ones that I do know about involved pure regulation, not the spending power, but I can't say none of them involved the spending power.

The issue I have with the contraception case that the SCOTUS recently agreed to hear: I have no objection, nor should I, to anyone living his or her life as he or she believes his or her interpretation of the Bible requires. So, if any employer does not choose to use contraceptives, cool.

I do have a problem, though, when people seek to impose their personal interpretation of the Bible (or that of their pastor) on everyone else, even though the Bible does not require that. That seems to me to be a lot less about religion and a lot more about trumped up self-righteousness, power plays and control freakishness. AFAIK, nothing in the bible requires employers to prevent their employees from using contraceptives.

What will five Catholic justices, one self-described conservative Jewish Justice (Kagan) and two (so far) pro-choice Jews decide about contraception? Will they interpret Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) broadly? Or will they strike down the contraceptive coverage provision on free exercise grounds? Will the frickin' individual mandate be the only part of Obamacare that the Justices care to uphold?

I have no clue.

[Enthusiast]

1. This court always does the wrong thing.

Extrapolate. When they don't do the wrong thing it now comes as a shock. It is a mostly right wing ideological court steeped in corruption. This birth control issue serves as a tool for the right, a tool used to elect more right wing ideologues.