Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court

  • 0

WASHINGTON, D.C (ABC News) -- Companies are not required to pay for employees' contraceptives for women if they have religious objections, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The justices' decision came in a 5-4 ruling in the much anticipated case.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the main dissent

Supremes Consider Contraception Challenge

3 Questions Facing the Supreme Court in Contraception Case

Planned Parenthood Goes After Sen. McConnell With New TV Ad

The court holds: “As applied to closely held corporations the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA”

Alito wrote that “RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for profit corporations like Conestoga and Hobby Lobby” and the “The HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion."

“The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the majority opinion.

Alito wrote that the onwers of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”

"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Ginsburg in her dissent wrote, "Reading the Act expansively, as the Court does, raises a host of ‘Me, too’ questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices.”