The US Supreme Court has ruled that companies can be legally exempt from providing insurance coverage for contraception and other healthcare if they possess a 'moral and/or religious objection' to it.
The ruling, which grants corporations the right to religious freedom for the first time, resulted from a dispute between arts-and-crafts store Hobby Lobby, owned by a multi-billionaire evangelical Christian family, and a former employee.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Hobby Lobby by a majority of 5 to 4, with all of the female justices dissenting.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Conservatives have hailed the case as a victory for religious freedom and against Obamacare, but liberal critics of the decision argue that it sets a "terrifying precedent" in which the country's highest court has "chosen religion over science".
Why did the owners have a problem providing insurance on contraception?
Evangelical Christians believe human life begins at the moment of fertilisation and consider devices and medication – such as the 'morning-after-pill' and intra-uterine devices – that take effect after this point tantamount to an abortion.
How have conservatives responded to the ruling?
Rush Limbaugh said the Supreme Court had "defended [the] liberty" of all Christians, while Fox radio host Todd Starnes tweeted: "Obama's plan to force Christians to fund abortions is thwarted".
Hobby Lobby co-founder Barbara Green told the Christian Broadcasting Network she was "overjoyed" by the decision. She called it "a victory, not just for our family business, but for all who seek to live out their faith."
Why is there such strong criticism of it?
