Justices order another look at key health care provision
November 26th, 2012
10:39 AM ET
2 years ago

Justices order another look at key health care provision

Washington (CNN) - The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from the private Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Health care • Supreme Court
soundoff (16 Responses)
  1. Gurgyl

    These abortion and contraceptive provisions neither abridge nor violate the provisions of the religious freedoms enshrined in constitution. They are physiological. I know the law precisely.

    November 26, 2012 11:01 am at 11:01 am |
  2. Gurgyl

    They are two different aspects of the law.

    November 26, 2012 11:02 am at 11:02 am |
  3. thomase

    You don't like taxes paying for abortion (which is laughable)? Well I don't like churches being tax exempt while preaching politics from the pulpit. The first amendment first is to protect religious rights AND to protect people from religion.

    November 26, 2012 11:10 am at 11:10 am |
  4. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA

    Amen Thomase.

    November 26, 2012 11:23 am at 11:23 am |
  5. Claudia, Houstson, Tx

    @thomase – I agree with you 100%. Furthermore, there's nothing in the Bible that says clergy should drive rolls royce, own airplanes, live in mansions , wear $1,000 designer suits and shoes while living off their donors.

    November 26, 2012 11:29 am at 11:29 am |
  6. dragonfire77

    I would appreciate it if people would start realizing that 'freedom OF religion' also includes 'freedom FROM religion'.

    November 26, 2012 11:30 am at 11:30 am |
  7. Bill from GA

    I'm sure no one has ever used Viagra to 'sin'.
    Is the church upset about that, or is it only women's sex life they want to control?

    November 26, 2012 11:36 am at 11:36 am |
  8. Wake up People!

    The government and churches need to stay OUT of peoples bedrooms. Period. People pay their premiums, they should have coverage for whatever they need. Republicans, YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

    November 26, 2012 11:37 am at 11:37 am |
  9. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    I don't think that this "university" really has a leg to stand on. They need to either make sure that everyone is covered and support women's health or make sure that they get something that their employees can get their own that covers contraception coverage. I don't see how they can really justify preventing this.

    November 26, 2012 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
  10. ja

    the justices need to revisit the corpotrate donations to political campagins, and we need to limit their time as justices, there is something inheritly wrong with the lifetime concept, there is a time and season for all things, look at billy graham, john mcain, God Bless them in old age, but pass the gavel, you are a disservice, at this point

    November 26, 2012 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm |
  11. Fair is Fair

    "People pay their premiums, they should have coverage for whatever they need."
    ------
    Would that include botox injections, facelifts, and breast augmentations if such procedures would assist in "making someone feel better about themself?"

    November 26, 2012 12:04 pm at 12:04 pm |
  12. Rudy NYC

    They're asking the wrong question. The correct question is whether or not employers should be allowed to violate employee's religions freedoms. What happens when an employer claims that they believe in faith healing, and do not want to offer any health care?

    November 26, 2012 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  13. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    Would that include botox injections, facelifts, and breast augmentations if such procedures would assist in "making someone feel better about themself?"
    ------------
    Please don't condescend. None those procedures are "preventative" or "curative". They're not covered now, and you're changing the subject.

    November 26, 2012 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |
  14. Fair is Fair

    "What happens when an employer claims that they believe in faith healing, and do not want to offer any health care?"
    ------
    They'll just cut the workforce to 29 hours per week.

    November 26, 2012 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  15. just sayin

    the easy way out is to just not offer medcial coverage and pay the $2000 fine. that way we can all end up with that top notch DC run healthcare system that the democrats want to force on the whole country. amtrak, post office, what could go wrong?

    November 26, 2012 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  16. Fair is Fair

    Rudy says:

    "Please don't condescend. None those procedures are "preventative" or "curative". They're not covered now, and you're changing the subject."
    --------
    Not trying to condescend. I ask a valid question. Depression is a viable clinical diagnosis. If someone has been diagnosed with depression and a board-certified psysician states that it is his or her professional opinion that a breast augmentation would ease the symptoms of said depression, could that not be deemed "curative" and therefore should be covered?

    November 26, 2012 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm |