Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

November 26, 2013 - 9:50 am

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases — from Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. — on the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate.

The challenge hinges on whether employers can opt out of the requirement because of the religious convictions of the business owners.

Arguments will likely be heard in March with a decision in June.

White House press secretary Jay Carney just issued a statement on the news:

The health care law puts women and families in control of their health care by covering vital preventive care, like cancer screenings and birth control, free of charge.  Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider a legal challenge to the health care law’s requirement that for-profit corporations include birth control coverage in insurance available to their employees.  We believe this requirement is lawful and essential to women’s health and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.

We do not comment on specifics of a case pending before the Court.  As a general matter, our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor.  The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women.  The Administration has already acted to ensure no church or similar religious institution will be forced to provide contraception coverage and has made a commonsense accommodation for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds.  These steps protect both women’s health and religious beliefs, and seek to ensure that women and families–not their bosses or corporate CEOs–can make personal health decisions based on their needs and their budgets.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) blasted the decision, saying “allowing a woman’s boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age.”

“In weighing this case my hope is that the court realizes that women working for private companies should be afforded the same access to medical care, regardless of who signs their paycheck,” Murray said. “We can’t allow legal precedent to dictate that the personal beliefs of those in positions of power can block those who aren’t from making their own health care decisions. That is a slippery slope that could lead to bosses dictating everything from an employee’s ability to access HIV treatment to their ability to vaccinate their children.”

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said “by failing to protect religious freedom, the Senate guaranteed that the courts would have to act.”

“I’m pleased the Supreme Court has decided to hear this important case,” Blunt added. “The HHS mandate is an enormous government overreach and it violates Americans’ constitutional rights. Employers should not be forced to choose between giving up their business for their faith or giving up their faith for their business.”

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
We do not comment on specifics of a case pending before the Court, says Carney. Then proceeds to do so.

Sounds like Murray has forgotten the 1st Amendment came before Obamacare.

Let the women that want this coverage buy a rider to the policy and PAY for it.

47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, the difference between "I choose to..." and "you must pay for..." is actually quite large.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part that describes how the employer actually prevents a woman from going to her doctor or pharmacy (or Walmart), plunking down her money, and getting the birth control she wants.

Is this the same mechanism that my employer uses to thwart my right to a free Mercedes every year?

Your body, your choice, your responsibility to pay for your choices. Especially when it's only $15 a month. It's not even high enough to hit the deductible of most (traditional, pre 0bozo-care) plans, or even the co-pay.

Conflating "my employer won't pay the measly $15 for it" with "my employer is preventing me from getting it" is an outright lie, and intellectually dishonest, which is true for most every argument made by the left, and feminists in particular. Things like this make me ignore *any* feminist claim of oppression and abuse from the get go as "presumed bullsh!t, not worthy of attention."
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (28)
All Comments   (28)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
til I looked at the receipt which had said $8851, I accept that...my... friend was like they say realy earning money in there spare time from their laptop.. there uncle has been doing this 4 only a year and recently repaid the morgage on there mini mansion and got themselves a Ford. why not try here WWW.jobs59.com
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
my buddy's step-mother makes $67 hourly on the computer. She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her income was $16227 just working on the computer for a few hours. read this.....WWW.Rush64.COM
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I find this ridiculous on so many levels. The government acts as if they have the right to tell these business owners that they have to leave their faith at home when they go to work. It's a PRIVATELY owned business and, as such, should be run by the family that owns it as they see fit. The first amendment protects against the government interfering in a persons religious beliefs and yet everyone ignores that and puts such a false spin on this suit that you'd think these people were Hitler and trying to control women. The media should be ashamed of themselves for not telling the story truthfully. If females who don't to pay for birth control go to planned parenthood they'll get it for free.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
You CHOOSE to drive your car......So you PAY for your own gas.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Supreme Court will strike down this ridiculous contraception mandate, and it won't be 5-4. It will be a 6-3 or 7-2 decision. http://freedomlinks.wordpress.com/
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
IT's too bad the payment for birth control is mixed up in this medical insurance mess. I am a very firm believer in a woman's right to choose and that right should not be dictated by church organizations or far right believers in what they think the Bible said. The cost of a month's supply of birth control pills is minimal. Payment should be by individual women and some sort of fine should be levied against women who repeatedly have illegitimate children. I am opposed to the current "hooking up" being done by young men and women and am very sorry that birth control make this activity easier. A way should be found to require those with a disease contracted by hooking up be paid for by the person who has the disease or who spread it. The rest of us should not have to pay.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women. Then, the government proceeds to dictate to all women, regardless of their religious or personal beliefs to do what they say, or else.....
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Xx
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
let's see, we pay for all their abortions and their birth control. then we pay for the fatherless children they create to get even more handouts. what's next, free tampex? free panty liners? maybe the taxpayers should pick up their clothing bills and makeup? feminists sure do loves 'em some free stuff. the half wit con man in charge just uses free stuff to buy votes. what a pitiful bunch they are.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
daveinfga...you forgot payment for diseases contracted.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
You left out free AIDs treatments and sex change procedures.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
We do not comment on specifics of a case pending before the Court, says Carney. Then proceeds to do so.

Sounds like Murray has forgotten the 1st Amendment came before Obamacare.

Let the women that want this coverage buy a rider to the policy and PAY for it.

47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

2 Trackbacks to “SCOTUS to Hear Birth Control Mandate Cases, White House Sounds Off”