SC Weighs Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate

[Horn6721]

paso
really?
"there are health benefits to avoiding a pregnancy and/or an abortion "

THAT sentence is not the same as your earlier pronouncement is it?

here in case you forgot the point you tried to make:
here
'There are also serious health benefits from contraceptives apart from avoiding pregnancy.


So again
what are the serious health benefits apart from avoiding pregnancy from Plan B and IUD?

 

[pasotex]

avoiding an abortion

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[theiioftx]

And there you have it.
The Link

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm not a lawyer but can the legal types tell me how the majority reconciles the Citizens United case where corporations had the rights of individuals and this case where closely held corporations/companies should not be treated the same as large companies? The narrow ruling sure seems self serving to me.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Did you mean that the other way around? Seems relatively consistent - in fact what would be inconsistent is saying that corporations have first-amendment rights but do NOT have the ability to have a religious stance. But as I understand the ruling, it's saying that closely held corporations are NOT treated the same as major corporations.

The reasoning seems pretty clear - the idea being that if I have a group of people who choose to incorporate a business, all of which have a core set of beliefs by which they want to run their business, then the idea would seem to be that they are in essence the owners, even in a corporation. (That's oversimplified, I know.)

If a corporation can have a culture, can't it have a moral compass as well? Can a corporation refuse to do business with companies based on human rights issues? Clearly the five justices believed that in a limited sense, that is the case for setting a corporate culture based on a shared religious conviction.