Health Law’s Contraceptive Rule Eased for Businesses With Religious Objections

Jul 13, 2015

by Robert Pear

The Obama administration issued new rules on Friday that allow closely held for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby Stores to opt out of providing women with insurance coverage for contraceptives if the companies have religious objections.

 Women enrolled in such health plans would still be able to get birth control at no cost, the administration said. Insurers would pay for contraceptive services, but the payments would be separate from the employer’s health plan.

The rules came in response to a decision by the Supreme Court in June 2014. In that case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the court said that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for coverage of contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom.

The administration had argued against that conclusion, saying there was no precedent for granting “a religious exemption” to commercial enterprises like the Hobby Lobby craft stores.

But under the rules issued by the administration on Friday, certain for-profit businesses will be able to obtain an accommodation like the one already available to nonprofit religious groups, including Roman Catholic universities, hospitals and charities that object to covering the costs of contraceptives.


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

7 comments on “Health Law’s Contraceptive Rule Eased for Businesses With Religious Objections

  • So, natural persons, in this case women have no rights, whereas corporate persons, that is businesses, have moral rights. Are these Roman Catholic corporations baptised, do they go to Confession and Holy Communion, can they partake in Matrimony, or better still receive Holy Orders? I’d like to give the whole lot of them Extreme Unction!



    Report abuse

  • @OP – The Obama administration issued new rules on Friday that allow closely held for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby Stores to opt out of providing women with insurance coverage for contraceptives if the companies have religious objections.

    Corporations are not “people” and should have no say on the rights of employees outside of their employment.

    What is needed is a UK style National Insurance Scheme, where employers make deductions from wages and salaries and then add an employers’ contribution to this, all of which is handed over to a state run service providing health-care and benefits according to national rules, in which employers have no further say.



    Report abuse

  • if I run a lunch counter and refuse to serve black people because my religion says they are the cursed race of ham that is MORE justified that refusing to sell contraceptives. Contraceptives (the pill) were not invented until the 1960s, far too late to make it into any holy book. The “religious” objection is just a personal objection.



    Report abuse

  • The problem is that health insurance isn’t the employer’s. It’s compensation for the employee working there. If an employee contributes to their health insurance, then they are typically paying for almost all of the medical expenses (even companies that pay 100% don’t give it to people/families that don’t work for the company). The employer typically pays insurance companies a per person fee to manage the employee contributions to pay insurance claims. If the claims exceed the amount that employees put in, then the employer puts in the difference and raises the rates the following year. If the costs are less, then the employer will pocket this money.
    The same argument could be used by an employer to determine what an employee should spend their wages on.



    Report abuse

  • Corporations are legally considered to be purposes for certain constitutional and legal purposes because they are an association of people. However, they cannot claim benefits that a group of people wouldn’t have, for example they cannot invoke the 5th amendment (refuse to testify to avoid incriminating oneself) as that right applies only to individuals.

    Here… I suppose they’re saying that certain corporations that are “tightly held” (i.e. family run) by a group of religious nut bags share their religion and can’t be forced to pay for something their religion forbids. I don’t really buy this, but it certainly wouldn’t apply to a publicly traded company.

    Realistically we just need to expand medicare to all Americans but since that will hurt profits of insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, and drug manufacturers and thus harm the true god of America (all hail the mighty dollar) it’s not gonna happen.



    Report abuse

  • Narcissistic_Martyr
    Jul 14, 2015 at 3:04 am

    Realistically we just need to expand medicare to all Americans but since that will hurt profits of insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, and drug manufacturers and thus harm the true god of America (all hail the mighty dollar) it’s not gonna happen.

    The foot-shooter fans of Faux News, keep voting for candidates who work against the community interests.

    There is plenty of scope for efficiency savings, waste reduction, and reducing rake-offs in the US health care business!

    http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/26/cost-of-health-care-by-country-national-geographic/

    Given that Americans pay about twice as much for a poorer service than most developed countries!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.