Greeting to you Polgara:2wave:
I can't see anything that limits the decision at all, not to contraception anyway. There is no reason that another employer can't deny any and all coverage for anything birth control related. I can't see why an employer couldn't prohibit coverage for single women and allow it for married women, if that's what their religion demands. And what Ginsberg pointed out is that the reasoning, if applied broadly, could lead to some insane conclusions. The ruling says over and over, this is limited, this is limited, we five men only mean to apply this to drugs used by wimmens for their lady parts, not REAL healthcare needs like vaccinations and other important stuff. So it strikes me as poorly reasoned on its face and obviously result oriented. Sort of like the Gore v. Bush ruling where they said, ONLY THIS TIME!! Please don't cite for precedence!
But yes, I don't actually care about the ruling all that much, and even with the 'loss' here, the ACA is a big win for women overall. It seems the better route would have been for Congress (the Senate) to have passed the exception that I think passed the House that would have allowed businesses to exempt out of contraception, then the law would have taxpayers fund the coverage. But as I recall, the religious orgs were opposed to even that compromise and demanded that mandatory coverage for contraception be stripped altogether as it applied to their employees.
Anyway, more than anything I am concerned that the door is now open for profit making corporations to make religious claims, and no matter how much people say otherwise, there are an an almost infinite number of crazy things people might be able to justify with religious beliefs. I hope the impact is as limited as the ruling predicts it will be.
