[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[caww]

I just had to go see what Dem. Underground is saying over these decisions....LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Oh they are more than p*ssed....burning up says it well! Ha!

[topher]

Does this apply to all cases — EWTN, other religious organizations that protested this provision???

[BuckeyeTexan]

SCOTUS also said in this ruling:

The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. (Emphasis mine.)

What does that mean? It means that if and when the government can demonstrate the least restrictive means of requiring these employers to provide cost-free access to those drugs that The Court may very well uphold the government's power to do so.

This decision was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) not on the constitutionality of the ACA.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicabil- ity” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling govern- mental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”