“The Supreme Court today rang a victory bell for religious freedom as it ruled 5-4 that “HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion” of three closely held companies – Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties, and Mardel.
The companies objected to the Obama administration’s mandate that they must provide, at no cost to their employees, coverage for products that can terminate life in the womb, violating their religious beliefs.”

“By a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court has ruled that family-owned, closely held corporations do not have to comply with the health law’s contraception coverage requirements if they violate the owner’s religious views. Legal analyst Stuart Taylor Jr. joins us now to discuss the decision. Thanks for being with us.
STUART TAYLOR: Nice to be with you.
MARY AGNES CAREY: Why did the court rule this way?
STUART TAYLOR: Well, the court held that under an act of Congress passed in 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the right is conferred on all religious groups, including, the court said in this case for the first time, for-profit corporations as well as churches and, say, nonprofit religious groups — they all get broad protection of their religious freedoms.”

A sampling of news articles on the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision:

“Kaiser Health News: Supreme Court Limits Contraceptive Mandate For Certain Employers
A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that at least some for-profit corporations may not be required to provide contraceptives if doing so violates the owners’ religious beliefs.But the five-justice majority writing in Burwell v Hobby Lobby, et al., took pains to try to limit their ruling only to the contraceptive mandate in the health law and only to “closely held” corporations like the family-owned businesses represented by the plaintiffs in the case (Rovner, 6/30).

The Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Makes Religious Exception To Health-Care Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in a 5-4 split said “closely held” companies can on religious grounds opt out of a federal health-care law requirement that companies provide contraception coverage for employees, carving another piece from President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement”
(continued)

“The Supreme Court today rang a victory bell for religious freedom as it ruled 5-4 that “HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion” of three closely held companies – Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties, and Mardel.
The companies objected to the Obama administration’s mandate that they must provide, at no cost to their employees, coverage for products that violate their religious beliefs by terminating life in the womb.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, noted that the companies have “sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.” The administration had argued that the plaintiffs were for-profit corporations and therefore couldn’t have religious beliefs.”

“On March 25, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in Halbig v. Sebelius, one of four lawsuits challenging the legality of implementing certain ACA provisions in the 34 states with federally established health insurance Exchanges. On May 14, a panel of the Fourth Circuit heard arguments in a related case, King v. Sebelius. Rulings in these cases could come at any time.”

‘Last week, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., heard oral arguments in King v. Sebelius. King is one of four cases challenging the implementation of ObamaCare’s Exchange subsidies, and the penalties they trigger, through federal Exchanges. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides those subsidies only “through an Exchange established by the State.” ‘

“The New York Times is lawyering again in defense of the Affordable Care Act in an editorial tendentiously titled More Specious Attacks on Reform. Hence the tendentious title of this post. In reality, legal arguments typically have two sides and dismissing one as specious (or frivolous) is almost always unwarranted and undermines the credibility of the critic, in this case the editorial writer of the Times.”

“A federal appeals court heard arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit claiming the Obama administration’s health care reform law provides tax subsidies only to people who buy insurance through state-run exchanges.

Four Virginia residents are challenging an Internal Revenue Service regulation that makes the subsidies available to low- and moderate-income residents regardless of whether they buy policies through state exchanges or one established by the federal government. Virginia is among 34 states that chose not to establish its own health insurance exchange.”

“Thus spoke King John of England before he was forced at the point of a sword on June 15, 1215 A.D. to eat his words by signing the Magna Carta, the first in a series of documents that established rule of law in England – versus rule by whatever the king says. It was a signal moment in the history of civilization, and the foundation of the United States’ great experiment in government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

“If the president wants to witness a refutation of his assertion that the survival of the Affordable Care Act is assured, come Thursday he should stroll the 13 blocks from his office to the nation’s second-most important court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There he can hear an argument involving yet another constitutional provision that evidently has escaped his notice. It is the origination clause, which says: “All bills for raising reveornue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.””