US Supreme Court rules against Obama in contraception case Monday June 30,2014

The US Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not force religious owners of closely-held, for-profit corporations to provide contraceptives to employees under health care insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act(ACA)

Some corporations have religious rights, a deeply divided Supreme Court decided Monday June 30,2014 in ruling that certain for-profit companies cannot be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees.

The 5-4 decision on ideological lines ended the high court's term with a legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law.

It also set off a frenzied partisan debate over religious and reproductive rights that will continue through the November congressional elections and beyond.

All five conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents ruled in favor of closely held for-profit businesses -- those with at least 50% of stock held by five or fewer people, such as family-owned businesses -- in which the owners have clear religious beliefs.

Contraceptives or abortion?

Both corporations involved in Monday's rulng -- Conestoga Wood Specialties of Pennsylvania and Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based arts-and-crafts retail giant -- emphasize their conscientious desire to operate in harmony with biblical principles while competing in a secular marketplace.

They argued the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, violates the First Amendment and other federal laws protecting religious freedom because it requires them to provide coverage for contraceptives like the "morning-after pill," which the companies consider tantamount to abortion.

"The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The four liberal justices appointed by Democratic presidents, including the high court's three women, opposed the ruling as a possible gateway to further religious-based challenges that limit individual choice and rights.

US SC Ruling

• Supporters call it a victory for religious freedom
• Opponents say it allows bosses to restrict workers' health care decisions

The 5-4 ruling says the health care act cannot force a "closely held company" to cover certain types of contraceptives for its employees because the government could not show that the requirement was the "least burdensome" way to avoid interfering with religious convictions. The court emphasized that this decision does not mean that companies could refuse to cover other things, such as blood transfusions.

But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the court "has ventured into a minefield" and that religious protections should apply to organizations formed for a religious purpose.

The Internal Revenue Service says a "closely held corporation" is generally one in which the majority of stock is owned by no more than five people and "is not a personal service corporation."

Will such businesses now be allowed to refuse employees access to medical marijuana? Will they be allowed to refuse to do business with people in same-sex marriages? All sorts of questions arise from this decision.