Started By
Message
re: Pro "Choice"? Read this, it will change your mind. Who killed Junior?
Posted on 7/1/14 at 8:36 am to 3nOut
Posted on 7/1/14 at 8:36 am to 3nOut
quote:
They said a company did not have to subsidize 4-5 forms of birth control that terminate a pregnancy after the fact.
No they said a closely held company did not have to provide ANY contraceptive in their health insurance plan. HL only challenged 4-5 of them, but the SC ruled they could exclude all of them.
1
Posted on 7/1/14 at 12:03 pm to The Spleen
quote:
They said a company did not have to subsidize 4-5 forms of birth control that terminate a pregnancy after the fact.
No they said a closely held company did not have to provide ANY contraceptive in their health insurance plan. HL only challenged 4-5 of them, but the SC ruled they could exclude all of them.
No they didn't. They can't exclude all of them. It has to do with a law signed by Clinton in the 90s that requires the least restrictive condition be used to justify a limit on religious freedom. The least restrictive, in this case, was keeping BC on the list, but allowing Plan B's and intra-uterine devices to not have to be covered by the company.
Women will still have access to BC and the federal government will most likely issue an executive order issuing that they will pick up the cost of those items in the event that a company does not.
This reaction is much ado about nothing.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News