SCOTUS Refuses Temporary Hold For ACA Contraception Coverage

No matter how many times Bible-thumpin' fetus worshippers insist contraceptives cause abortions, they just don't. But they do like to torture themselves (and everyone else) with their insistence that they do. When this case and the ones like it

[oldembed src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_vQ7_C9xeAI?rel=0" width="425" height="239" resize="1" fid="21"]

No matter how many times Bible-thumpin' fetus worshippers insist contraceptives cause abortions, they just don't. But they do like to torture themselves (and everyone else) with their insistence that they do. When this case and the ones like it make their way to the Supreme Court, we will see the reality vs. non-reality split the court once again:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court declined Wednesday to put a temporary hold on a controversial provision in the new health care law requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Two businesses challenging the act -- the nationwide chain of 500 Hobby Lobby Stores and Mardel, a chain of Christian bookstores -- contended that the law violates their religious freedom. Their legal battle is continuing over the merits of their claim. In the meantime, they asked the US Supreme Court to put a temporary hold on the law, which takes effect January 1, 2013.

On Wednesday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from the courts where the companies are based, declined to grant an injunction.

In a brief written opinion, she said the Supreme Court has never addressed similar freedom-of-religion claims brought by for-profit corporations objecting to mandatory provisions of employment benefit laws.

"Lower courts have diverged on whether to grant temporary injunctive relief to similarly situated plaintiffs," she said, "and no court has issued a final decision granting permanent relief with respect to such claims."

If the two companies ultimately lose in the lower courts, the justice said, they can still appeal to the Supreme Court.
Lawyers for members of the family that owns the two businesses, based in Oklahoma, told the court that the law will expose them to "draconian fines unless they abandon their religious convictions."

While they do not object to the provision of insurance coverage for all contraceptives, they do object to coverage for "certain drugs and devices that they believe can cause abortions," their lawyers said.

About Susie Madrak

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.