The controversy and media attention around the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases before the Supreme Court undoubtedly, and understandably, focus on contraception. However, there are several important implications for sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention as well.
Even as the Supreme Court weighs a ruling in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases, conservatives are pushing more legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act writ large.
From the start of this week’s oral arguments, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg drilled former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who was arguing on behalf of the for-profit craft store Hobby Lobby. That’s because they know that if Hobby Lobby wins, women lose.
More than 40 groups came together on the Court’s plaza to rally in support of the birth control benefit in Obamacare, as the justices heard arguments against it.
Ultimately, it may not be the conservative justices’ animosity toward reproductive rights and women’s health care generally that sinks the birth control benefit, but rather the Obama administration’s refusal to vigorously defend it.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases challenging the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Here’s everything you need to know about those cases.
New research reveals the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases are a product of deep coordination between anti-choice and free market groups.
If corporations are people with a right to refuse to comply with health-care requirements based on religious beliefs, it stands to reason that they would not only be permitted to refuse birth control coverage but other types of coverage as well.
The leaders of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation have invited themselves into their employees’ bedrooms and medicine cabinets under the guise of religious freedom, and these bosses are seriously out of line.
According to a recent piece by Reuters, the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases are going to tackle the “unsettled science” of contraception. But there is no “unsettled science” here, no “scientific dilemma” concerning when pregnancy begins beyond one created by anti-choice activists.