Skip to main content

View Diary: The Supreme Court wants to look at the ACA again, and they're coming for your birth control (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  These are valid second-tier questions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, basket, VClib

    The current cases involve corporations whose owners' religious beliefs are unified.

    •  but even if these cases are simpler in terms (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Schul, Calamity Jean

      of religion, doesn't the Court have to think about the implications for corporations that aren't so simple?
      And what happens if ownership changes or one of the owners converts to another religion, or the next generation inherits the company and one sibling is atheist and the other is fundamentalist. Does the contraception policy automatically have to change? (sort of a distortion of the "does the vote reside in the man or the mule" kind of thing).
      Or once again, if it's a publicly traded company, where do the shareholders' religions come in?
      Seems to me that this case might fit into the category that this court hates -- all kinds of complexities that would automatically follow if they determine that the corporation can deny types of coverage based on the "corporation's religion."
      I'm hoping they'll see that allowing companies to opt out of coverage based on the religion of (some/all?) the owners would open the door for huge numbers of cases that question all the different aspects of ownership, religion, and health care.

      While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

      by Tamar on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 01:53:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site