We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
REPUBLICANS CALLED IT a win for religious freedom. The decision of the Supreme Court, they said, is further evidence that the country’s new health care law is deeply flawed.
The claims of victory arrived almost immediately after the high court ruled yesterday that some companies need not provide contraception to women as required by President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement. Yet there’s a risk for the GOP in crowing too loudly.
Republicans for years have tried to make inroads with two groups that tend to favour Democrats: women and younger voters. And as popular as the court’s decision will be with the Republican base, it’s likely to be just as unpopular this year and into 2016 with those who depend on insurance to pay for birth control a group that includes women and younger voters.
“The thought of your boss telling you what kind of birth control you can and can’t get is offensive and it certainly is motivating to women to vote,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which plans to spend several million dollars this year to campaign for Senate candidates.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that some companies can hold religious objections allowing them to opt out of health law’s birth control coverage requirement. While the ruling does not address the heart of the Affordable Care Act, it’s a setback for Democrats and amplifies a longstanding argument from conservatives that the law they call “Obamacare” intrudes on religious liberties as part of a larger government overreach.
“This is a clear and decisive defeat against Obamacare and a victory for the rights of all Americans,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a fundraising appeal distributed less than three hours after the Supreme Court ruling.
But Republican leaders such as Priebus were careful to avoid mentioning the impact on women and their reproductive rights, underscoring the delicate balance the GOP must strike as it works to improve its image among women.
The party is still recovering from a series of insensitive comments made by GOP candidates in the 2012 election, including Missouri US Senate candidate Todd Akin, whose campaign crumbled after he said women’s bodies were able to avoid pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape.”
“Republicans have to be careful about not appearing as though they’re anti-contraception. This is a constitutional issue,” said Katie Packer Gage, a GOP strategist whose firm advises Republicans on navigating women’s issues. “We have to be very, very cautious as a party.”
Polls suggest that most people — and a larger majority of women — think for-profit companies should be required to cover the cost of birth control. A Gallup survey conducted in May found that 90% of Americans, including 88% of Republicans, see the use of birth control as morally acceptable.
Democrats said the ruling would shine a spotlight on access to birth control and dovetail with a strategy by the party to mobilize female voters on issues such as raising the minimum wage and supporting pay equity for women.
Fewer young women typically vote in midterm elections compared with presidential years and polls show they’re particularly disengaged from this year’s races.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Shameful decision. The Christian Taliban claim another US victory.
I’m at a complete loss. Can a company have a religious belief?
Even if it does, simply allowing its employees to practice their own hardly constitutes an onerous burden?
As Mitt Romney said corporations are people. i.e. they have the same rights as people but if they release something that kills a load of people they have to pay a small fine instead of going to jail.
So the republicans have won the religious freedom to impose their religions morality on their employees? Sounds like something out of saudi arabia.
But then I remember that schools here in Ireland do exactly the same thing to the teachers working there, and those are state funded.
This is why we need secularism. Jesus himself advocated the separation of church and state.
No they haven’t. All they’ve won is the right to opt out of paying for a particular drug in particular cases. (However, if you read the judgment properly, they haven’t even got that. They’ve won the right to state that they don’t support contraception, after which the insurer pays for it anyway, and recovers it in premiums.)
In a sane country, your employer wouldn’t be the main provider of healthcare in the first place. But that ship has sailed.
Excellent Article on this here. Apparently the beliefs of the corporations owners come first over the needs of the female employees.
http://jezebel.com/why-women-arent-people-but-corporations-are-1598061808
From the article:
“Today, five men on the Supreme Court said that women’s reproductive health care is less important than a woman’s boss’s superstition-based prudery and moral trepidation about fornication for female pleasure. They ruled that it doesn’t matter if birth control actually causes abortions; it only matters if business owners sincerely believe that birth control causes abortions.”
This story is misleading. The case against ‘Obamacare’ was taken by a company called Hobby Lobby (an arts & crafts supply store) owned by a Christian family.
Some reports are saying that this company refused to provide for ANY form of contraception for their employees – Not true. The company contributed to an almost full range of contraception, & healthcare.
Hobby Lobby ONLY had a problem with paying for abortions, or drugs that caused termination of pregnancy. The story has once again been twisted and distorted, by the International media.
A huge amount of hatred & even threats of violence have been triggered toward this company – without the public knowing the full facts.
Agreed, they accepted to cover 12 of the 16 forms of contraception possibly offered on an insurance policy, those they are refusing to cover are ones that are post conception, ones which they believe are a form of abortion.
Why a company must pay for a woman’s contraception is another matter and I personally believe its a private matter and certainly something your employer should not have to pay. Its not like covering medical expenses while your out due to a bad back or broken leg or disease. I believe condoms are even on the list. Seriously who honestly thinks its your employer who should provide you condoms and the morning after pill?
Its ridiculous, Obama is simply wrong here and I’m by no means religious but I support any company who offers an insurance policy which lists 12 of 16 forms of contraception, I’d sign it and be gland they cover as many as they do on the policy.
I certainly wouldn’t be looking for everything to down the smallest thing to be included in a company insurance policy. Every policy is different and its up to the company not the government to include what they are willing to cover, more importantly it’s the employee’s position to sign and accept the terms of said policy.
Being pissed your employer won’t pay for the ‘late pill’ is absurd and nothing to do with religion but more a sign of the entitlement people seem to expect these days and using religious freedom bullshit as a means to gain support and recognition.
There’s an awful lot of media spin going on here with very few it seemingly understanding what this precedents means yet are out for boycotts and protest. I actually support Hobby Lobby on this one.
Hobby Lobby actually profit from companies who produce contraception given that their company invests in such companies. Hypocrisy of the highest order. This legislation means that if a company believes that, for example, the pill leads to increases in abortion then they can legally refuse to contribute to female employees taking the pill.
Where I believe they are being reasonable and fair covering as many forms as they do. What company covers every type of possible foreseeable cover, and honestly other than abortion and right to life Christians believe in, what else are they not willing to support on the employee insurance? I’m sure they refuse to cover many other procedures and illnesses yet this small one, they object to and they are being vilified for.
I don’t support the idea of companies being seen as persons under the law or that they can hold a religious point of view for that fact either.
This ruling may have further implications down the line I understand that, can’t see what they could possible reasonable be though, where other companies push for more leniency in what they cover under religious beliefs but this particular case is a moderate one, perhaps grand on the future implications, it seems the religious groups seems to be the only side being vocal on this and think they have made a mountain out of a molehill. It seems to be working.
That isn’t quite true Zoe. It has been very well established, through a number of scientific studies on the issue, that the morning after pill works by preventing ovulation. Some of the other methods that they objected to, like copper releasing IUDs most likely do have an effect post-fertilization, however the morning after pill simply doesn’t.
In other news the Supreme Court upheld the right of California to ban groups who claimed they could convert homosexuals to heterosexuality from offering their services to idiot parents. In a statement one of the groups said that they were deeply disappointed as those homosexuals whose “problem” was caused by the fact that they were sexually abused as children would now go untreated.
And people think the Islamists are bad……..
“And people think the Islamists are bad……..”
Well they are…
Its amazing how this article misses so many issues. Firstly the issue focused on abortifacient contraceptives, contraceptives that both sides believe lead to abortions. Secondly there was no objection to women choosing contraceptives for their own purposes. There was no proposed ban on contraceptives.
The latest surveys showed 51% favouring the courts decision with 11% undecided and only 38% supporting Obamas decision to force people of faith to pay for abortions for their staff.
This was a great victory for religious freedom. Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor, pay for abortion?
This intolerance, towards people of faith is the new normal. At the pride march in Dublin, supporters with clipboards went around to businesses in Dublin “forcing” them to put supportive literature in their windows. Those who refused were bombed on twitter and Facebook within fifteen minutes.
Ah would ya look, an article about birth control, and Paddy Scully is out in force. Missed ya Paddy, keep up the good work (bigotry).
@ Julian Hough
As I said Julian, intolerance is the new norm towards persons of faith.
Paddy lad lecturing to the rest of us on intolerance, oh the irony!
How’s your scheme to keep hundreds of thousands of consenting adults from marrying going lad?
@ John Everyman
Dear John, the hundreds of thousands may be a little bit of an exaggeration. If we redefine marriage, after the initial backlog, my estimate is there would be 60 homosexual couples marrying per year in Ireland.
But this is an article that should rejoice in religious freedom, not facilitate other pet biases.
” my estimate is there would be 60 homosexual couples marrying per year in Ireland”
Didn’t realise that you were dwelling on the issue so much to do calculations Paddy lad. I won’t claim to know how many couples will seek to marry, but I will state that there are hundreds of thousands of gay people in the country and you would deny all of them the right to marry on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
If that’s not intolerance to you, invest in a dictionary.
Paddy what’s your thoughts on the 800 children left to rot in a septic tank? and were you at the gay pride march to see this people with clipboards forcing people to put up posters. You really do talk the biggest amount of c**p on this site.
Are they selling Viagra,Paddy?
@ John Everyman
Yes Dear John, I tend to look at things practically.
I do of course deny, that I would deny anyone the right to marry, with the only caveat that they do so with the same restrictions as the rest of us.
The online harassment that occurred in Dublin is in keeping with the experiences abroad where the IRS were plundered for a list of marriage supporters, who were then in turn harassed. A good look in the mirror is recommended.
The people of Ireland, where we at least get to vote, need to be fully aware of the bigotry applied towards those who support marriage. The reality is if marriage is redefined the bullying we are seeing makes the workplace of all marriage supporting persons, fair game to the new intolerant. Let’s keep marriage the institution in which children are best cared for by a mother and a father.
Funny how studies show no difference in kids raised by same sex couples. But lets not let the facts get in the way of bigotry. You don’t support marriage unless it’s for everyone.
@ Rob Cahill
What you say is just not true Rob.
But from your non bigoted, non partisan, perspective; do you believe motherhood has no intrinsic value? Boobs were a mistake by nature, and wombs are just unfortunately necessary, but hireable. Mothers contribute nothing that a gay partner, with no biological connection, couldn’t supply. Sure we can naturally conclude that a boy raised by two dads, is going to be just as confident in his communications with the ladies in his future.
Have you read any of the stories from children raised by gay men?
This is what you get when you sell your soul to the devil and take up employment with a company whose ethics you don’t approve of,
And suddenly, of course, they will become religious! Typical American situation. Politically fools to put up with this mendacity.
Would be much better off writing legislation that supports expecting and well-established mothers in the workplace i.e. paid maternity leave, job security for more than 6-12 weeks after giving birth, or even something so basic as the right to sit down during the work day. Much better to work to create a system in which women feel they can have their children and continue on with their lives without shame, fear, or the threat of losing their jobs.
Pregnancy and childbirth are the most natural awe-inspiring events in humanity. It can also be a frightening and tough-going time for the mother. Why not turn the focus onto supporting the mother throughout pregnancy and beyond? We need that from employers more than we need them to pay for the rest.
This exactly — “Would be much better off writing legislation that supports expecting and well-established mothers in the workplace i.e. paid maternity leave, job security for more than 6-12 weeks after giving birth, or even something so basic as the right to sit down during the work day. Much better to work to create a system in which women feel they can have their children and continue on with their lives without shame, fear, or the threat of losing their jobs.”
The fight with Hobby Lobby is the wrong fight. Why not fight to have the work place be more hospitable to mothers (and fathers)?
Didn’t see that coming. See what I did there?
Yeah you made a crap pun. Congratulations!
Thank you.
Your welcome
Ban all religion quick fast so we can move on as a whole global society! Obviously there is a God of some sort, but religion has and always will do more harm than good
“Obviously there is a God of some sort”
Not really. Pick up a science book once in a while.
Great news.
Well done Michael Warsaw CEO of EWTN who took on the US Government and won!
have your say