The Roberts Court will issue an opinion in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases in June, but that decision will likely not be the last one from the Supreme Court on the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit.
Federal courts are increasingly recognizing Title VII protects against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is why a broad ruling in the Hobby Lobby case could be especially devastating.
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.
The Court announced it would not hear the appeal of the owners of a photography business who claim they have a constitutional right to refuse to photograph same-sex couples. The decision lets stand a state supreme court ruling that states business owners must provide services to LGBTQ couples the same way they do to heterosexual couples.
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.
Vox Senior Editor Timothy Lee said that if an employer restricts contraceptive coverage, “people are free to pay for their own birth control.” Here’s why he’s wrong.
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.
It’s been said over and over again that birth control is “life-saving” for some women, who need it to aid conditions such as endometriosis and ovarian cysts. But people also, overwhelmingly, use birth control to do exactly as its name implies: to control their fertility. Let’s stop hiding some of the lives we fight for under a “tactical” shroud.
A veto in Arizona may have meant the demise of one attempt to further enshrine discrimination in the name of religious liberty, but the larger threat from the Supreme Court remains.