Another facet of health law goes to court
WASHINGTON — President Obama's health care law is headed for another Supreme Court showdown over companies' religious objections to the law's birth-control mandate.
Amid the troubled rollout of the health law, and 17 months after the justices upheld it, the Obama administration is defending a provision that requires most employers that offer health insurance to their workers to provide a range of preventive health benefits, including contraception.
About 40 for-profit companies have sued, arguing they should not be forced to cover some or all forms of birth control, because doing so would violate their religious beliefs.
Both sides want the justices to settle an issue that has divided lower courts. The high court could announce its decision whether to take up the topic as early as Tuesday, after its closed-door meeting.
Arguments probably would take place in late March, with a decision expected in late June.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- House to vote on cyber threat bill
- Senate deal clears way for vote on Lynch confirmation
- Pope accepts resignation of bishop in Kansas City, Mo. who failed to report suspected child abuser
- In defiant act, Boston bomber captured flipping off camera
- Report: Major changes needed for nation’s power infrastructure
- Residents near N.C. ash dumps told not to drink well water
- Tulsa deputy who mistook gun for Taser pleads not guilty, is cleared for vacation
- Obama chides Dems opposed to trade deal
- Charge reduced against trucker in fatal pileup on Wyoming interstate
- Reagan shooter Hinckley closer to permanent freedom
- Pope accepts resignation of U.S. bishop who failed to report abuse