re: Didn't like the Hobby Lobby decision? Look at the follow up decisions

NC_Tigah: As I read the many posts since the initial decision, my take is that most posters don't think employers should have to provide health insurance and if they do then it is solely up to the employer as to what should be covered. Finally I think underlying those beliefs is of course the belief that the ACA should not be. Perhaps I'm being too general in summarizing those posts.

But the ACA is the law of the land since it was upheld by the S. Ct.
The Hobby Lobby decision purported to be narrow in its scope, dealing only with the ACA regulation that private, for-profit companies must provide certain types of birth control coverage without a copay. Further at issue specifically was the provision of the "morning after" pill and IUDs. Now I agree with the dissent (though my opinion doesn't count for anything). It was a sweeping decision.

The owners may be religious but how can a for profit company be?
As Ginsburg pointed out yes, under the act there is an "opt out" due to beliefs for charities and religious organizations but they are there to further the interests of their members and the "faithful". Companies exist to make money. So I have a very basic difficulty with extending the rights of corporations to have "religious freedom". I don't see where that ends.

Then the Wheaton case expanded it even further than just the morning after pill and IUDs. So on the legal issues that's my beef. Now on the practical impacts side-I do have issue, as I stated earlier, with now having a situation where you have unequal impacts (the whole vasectomy-viagra discussion). On the political impact side-both parties as usual will use this in the upcoming elections. Politicians make hay from things like this while all of us, one way or another, pay for it.