November 26th, 2012
10:39 AM ET
10 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
From CNN Politics
- Untitled
- Score Major Rewards if You Have an Excellent Credit Score
- Federal background check system in spotlight after Highland Park shooting
- Where state abortion bans stand amid legal challenges
- White House communications director Kate Bedingfield leaving her role
- Biden to rescind Afghanistan's major Non-NATO ally designation
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.
They are two different aspects of the law.
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.
Amen Thomase.
@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.
I would appreciate it if people would start realizing that 'freedom OF religion' also includes 'freedom FROM religion'.
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?
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.
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.
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
"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?"
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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?