This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/28093756

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Hobby Lobby case: Court rejects contraception mandate Hobby Lobby case: Court curbs contraception mandate
(35 minutes later)
The US Supreme Court has ruled a Christian-owned company can claim a religious exemption to a legal requirement that employers pay for their workers' contraception. The US Supreme Court has ruled a Christian-owned company can claim a religious exemption to a law requiring employers to pay for their workers' contraception.
The owners of craft supply shop chain Hobby Lobby argued the mandate in President Barack Obama's healthcare law violated their religious beliefs. The owners of craft chain Hobby Lobby and others argued the mandate in President Barack Obama's healthcare law violated their religious beliefs.
The 5-4 decision applies only to "closely held" companies.The 5-4 decision applies only to "closely held" companies.
It does not apply to other healthcare some find morally objectionable. The court said the law offered other ways to ensure access to contraception.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the requirement, written into Mr Obama's signature 2010 health overhaul, that companies with 50 or more employees offer a health insurance plan that covers contraception. In the landmark ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court found that some corporations can hold religious objections that exempt them from the requirement, written into Mr Obama's signature health overhaul, that companies with 50 or more employees offer a health insurance plan that pays for contraception at no charge to the worker or pay a fine.
'A slippery slope'
The case turned in large part on whether the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which bars the US government from taking action that "substantially burdens the exercise of religion", applies to for-profit companies.The case turned in large part on whether the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which bars the US government from taking action that "substantially burdens the exercise of religion", applies to for-profit companies.
"We reject [the Department of Health and Human Services'] argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court. "The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
"The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs."
The decision marks the first time the Supreme Court has found a profit-seeking business can hold religious views under federal law, analysts say.The decision marks the first time the Supreme Court has found a profit-seeking business can hold religious views under federal law, analysts say.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling a "decision of startling breadth".In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling a "decision of startling breadth".
The ruling is a blow to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which has been beset by legal challenges since it passed in 2010. "It discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt-outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer's religious beliefs," she said in a dissent she read allowed from the bench.
The decision in the closely watched and highly politicised case prompted swift reaction.
Reproductive rights lobby group Naral Pro-Choice America called it a "direct attack on women and our fundamental rights".
"Allowing bosses this much control over the healthcare decisions of their employees is a slippery slope with no end," its president Ilyse Hogue wrote in a statement.
Tony Perkins, president of Christian conservative advocacy group Family Research Council, hailed it as "one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation".
"All Americans can be thankful that the Court reaffirmed that freedom of conscience is a long-held American tradition and that the government cannot impose a law on American men and women that forces them to violate their beliefs in order to hold a job, own a business, or purchase health insurance," he wrote in a statement.
'Committed evangelical Christians''Committed evangelical Christians'
But it is unclear whether any women employees will actually lose birth control coverage, because the Obama administration had already devised a mechanism under which workers of non-profit organisations that object to the contraception mandate could keep coverage without the organisation having to pay for it. The ruling is a blow to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which has been beset by legal challenges since it passed in 2010 over unanimous opposition from the Republican Party.
In the case decided on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled on challenges by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp, a wood cabinetmaker owned by Mennonites. But it is unclear whether any women employees will actually lose birth control coverage.
As the court noted, the Obama administration has already devised a mechanism under which workers of non-profit organisations that object to the contraception mandate could keep coverage without the organisation having to pay for it.
The court also said its ruling did not apply to other forms of healthcare that some find morally objectionable, such as blood transfusions or vaccinations.
The challenge to the health law's contraception mandate was brought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp, a wood cabinetmaker owned by Mennonites.
Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain, employs 13,000 full-time employees. Conestoga employs 950 people.Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain, employs 13,000 full-time employees. Conestoga employs 950 people.
The owners of Hobby Lobby, David Green, Barbara Green and several relatives, had described themselves as "committed evangelical Christians" and said their religious beliefs "forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for... or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices". The owners of Hobby Lobby, David Green, Barbara Green and several relatives, describe themselves as "committed evangelical Christians", and said their religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception that they deemed caused abortion.
The Affordable Care Act, known by critics and supporters as Obamacare, has been subject to countless legal and political challenges from Republicans and conservatives since its passage. The Affordable Care Act, known to critics and supporters as Obamacare, has been subject to countless legal and political challenges from Republicans and conservatives since its passage.
Considered the largest overhaul of the US healthcare system since the 1960s, it aims to extend health insurance coverage to the estimated 15% of the US population who lack it. Considered the largest overhaul of the US healthcare system since the 1960s, it aimed to extend health insurance coverage to the estimated 15% of the US population who lacked it and to slow the growth of healthcare costs.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on the law. In 2012, it affirmed the constitutionality of the act's central provision, a requirement that most individuals who do not receive health insurance from the government or their employers purchase it or face a fine.