Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc case. As virtually everyone is aware, the CEO of Hobby Lobby is contesting the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate.
The company's refusal to comply with the mandate stems from a religious objection to birth control and abortifacient drugs, and they insist that the First Amendment protects their right to exclude these prescriptions from their health insurance plans. One of the interesting questions at issue in this case is whether or not corporations are entitled to the same legal protections as individual persons. Supporters of Hobby Lobby are quick to point to the legal precedent set in the recent Citizens United ruling, which concluded that corporations, like persons, are protected by the First Amendment in the area of free speech. Thus, if corporations have the same speech rights as individuals persons, so too should they have the same rights of religious conscience. If Hobby Lobby is owned by a Christian family and governed according to explicitly Biblical principles, then it follows that the company's health care coverage may reflect those principles, and the government may not infringe upon this area of Free Exercise.
There is no question that the law has treated corporations as "people" for various reasons, particularly in the last century. Women- and minority-owned businesses, for example, are often entitled to the same kind of affirmative action and quota policies as individuals in these demographics. This debate has prompted journalists and commentators to engage in a review of the judicial history of corporate personhood, in an attempt to navigate the assertions being made in the Hobby Lobby case. Turns out, despite the popular impact of the Citizens United decision, that the habit of according individual rights to corporations is a relatively new phenomenon. From Slate: more >>
While today may be the opening day for baseball, today is the final day for enrollment in the Obamacare exchange.
In trying to navigate healthcare.gov this morning, it was discovered that the website was down for maintenance. The administration was quick to put a headline on the website that said the website would be slow due to a high volume of visitors to the website, but all along this is what the White House claimed to expect during the final days of the enrollment period. Why is it that all the glitches hadn't been worked out before the day of the final deadline?
Day after day there seems to be another issue with Obamacare, it is a far cry from what was sold and pedaled to the American people. What happened to the promise of affordable healthcare, keeping your doctor and your insurance, and a website as simple as kayak.com? As we all know, these three promises, along with many more, were broken. Many visitors to the website have waited hours just to try to enroll, over six million people have lost their coverage, and premiums are skyrocketing due to the lack of enrollment by Millennials. more >>
The website of President Barack Obama's signature health care law stalled early Monday for about six hours on the deadline day for the first year of enrollment. While experts say major hurdles remain, the White House and its allies are expected to claim victory.
HealthCare.gov, which has faced technical problems since its launch in October, flashed messages that the site was down for maintenance, early visitors complained Monday morning. Some visitors were even directed to a virtual waiting room by a feature that seeks to ease the pressure on the site when the use is heavy, The Associated Press reported.
The website was brought back up shortly before 9 a.m. Eastern Time, according to administration spokesman Aaron Albright, who claimed it goes through "regular nightly maintenance" when the online portal is not expected to be busy. It's just that the off-peak period was extended because of a "technical problem," Albright added. more >>
The governor of West Virginia has vetoed a bill that would have outlawed most abortions after 20 weeks gestation, claiming the bill is unconstitutional.
Despite being passed with overwhelming bipartisan support from both houses of the state legislature, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed the bill late Friday.
In a statement issued Friday, Gov. Tomblin explained that he felt House Bill 4588 had problems regarding its constitutionality and how it affected healthcare. more >>
As the chaotic healthcare enrollment period grinds to a halt this week, it is clear that Obamacare has changed America.
Oh, what a tangled web Liberals weaved when they practiced to deceive Americans -- about why it was "necessary" to dismantle America's healthcare system, when all that it really needed was minor tweaking. Coverage for pre-existing conditions and increasing the dependent age are tweaks upon most would agree.
No one really knows how many Americans actually have coverage through Obamacare. Maybe 6 million -or maybe not; whatever the case, it's probably not enough to prevent costs from increasing as early as next year. And there's no telling how many of those were previously uninsured. more >>
A U.S. appeals court upheld a Texas law on Thursday that requires abortionists to gain admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of their abortion clinics.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, La., ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott that Texas' HB 2, which was signed into law last July, is constitutional and does not place an undue burden on abortionists and women seeking abortions.
HB 2 went into effect in October 2013 and requires abortionists to follow FDA guidelines for administering abortion-inducing drugs, such as RU-486, to patients in-office; places a ban on abortions at 20 weeks gestation; requires abortion facilities to meet the health and safety standards of ambulatory care centers by the fall of this year; and requires abortionists to gain admitting privileges at a hospital located within 30 miles of the clinics where they practice. more >>