belief. ginsburg wrote the court s notion of corporate personhood invites for profit entities to seek religion based. there is an alternative means for women employed by hobby lobby or other companies affected by the ruling. there is a means for them to get contraceptive coverage and there is an exemptions already to the rule that s in place for religiously affiliated hospitals, universities where the insurance companies provide contraception. they are reimbursed by the government. so what s wrong with the ruling? why isn t it as narrow as lori is saying? the court just says ifs narrow. it doesn t give reasons why closely held corporations should be treated differently from publically traded corporations.
nonprofits, in another circumstance. it remains to be seen if they will. but this they did go that route action then it would affect far, far fewer people. because white employers would no longer be offering it, that coverage would still be available. on that last point if they go that route, as far as i can see, it would literally affect no one. i want to read what the court said about it. and it seemed to be that anthony kennedy was betting on this. in his decision. that in practical terms, no woman will actually lose her coverage for contraception because of this point. it says, under the affordable care act religious employer accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or
ruled certain for profit businesses can opt-out. here s reaction from both sides. today s decision is a landmark decision for religious freedom. the supreme court recognized that american families do not lose their fundamentaling rights when they open a family business. women s voices are heard standing up for religious freedom. this case is about the freedoms of all americans, women and men and something all americans should celebrate today. i m disturbed that five male supreme court justices would essentially have stated in a ruling that discrimination against women specifically is not really discrimination in this country. no comment on the ruling today directly from president obama. but his spokesperson offered this. there are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious
this case available to women without cost. in the case of hobby lobby, have the women ever gotten coverage for those four drugs? there was a time in the past when the green family unknowingly covered one or two of those drugs, without realizing they did act as abortion-inducing drugs. hobby lobby has provided contraceptive coverage for its female employees for years and years before the affordable care act. so you re not taking anything away that hasn t been taken away for some time. judge, let me ask you, the question is whether this court is prepared to slam back an overreaching decision. this court is not prepared to slap back an overreaching administration, it has done so in profound ways. the president claimed he could
contraceptive coverage. on this one the democrats see an opportunity. the right wins here. christian conservatives especially are pleased with the supreme court decision here. democrats see an opportunity though to use this motivate turnout this fall, among women voters and younger voters. do they have as much luck potentially in 2014 when you look at the states involved in the key senate races that tend to be more conservative or hillary clinton not so quickly because she sees this as a 2016 presidential bonus? absolutely right. hillary clinton must see some sort of 2016 opportunity here or else she would not have weighed on the daily news. just look at the last mind fund-raising e-mails that came out yesterday immediately after this decision, you saw women s groups and pro-democratic groups saying this is an infringement. this is a thing that they are hoping to gin up enthusiasm and get people not likely to vote, some young people not likely to go to the polls in mid term and perha