{"id":2902,"date":"2016-05-17T09:47:37","date_gmt":"2016-05-17T13:47:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=2902"},"modified":"2016-05-17T09:47:37","modified_gmt":"2016-05-17T13:47:37","slug":"supreme-court-sends-health-law-birth-control-case-back-to-lower-courts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=2902","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Sends Health Law Birth Control Case Back To Lower Courts"},"content":{"rendered":"

(By Julie Rovner for Kaiser Health News)<\/p>\n

When it comes to the issue of religious rights versus no-cost contraception, the only thing the Supreme Court could agree on was not to decide the case.<\/p>\n

In an unsigned opinion<\/a> issued Monday, the court sent a series of cases back to a raft of federal appeals courts, with instructions for those courts and the parties in the lawsuits to try harder to work things out. \u201cThe Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases,\u201d the opinion said.<\/p>\n

At issue is the extent to which religiously affiliated employers (such as universities or hospitals) need to participate in the requirement under the Affordable Care Act for most employer health plans to\u00a0provide no-cost contraception for women<\/a>. Read article here….<\/a><\/p>\n

Kaiser Health News\u00a0is\u00a0a nonprofit national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.<\/p>\n

\"khn-logo1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Notice<\/strong>: The link provided above connects readers to the full content of the posted article. The URL (internet address) for this link is valid on the posted date; medicarereport.org cannot guarantee the duration of the link\u2019s validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or medicarereport.org.<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
(By Julie Rovner for Kaiser Health News) When it comes to the issue of religious rights versus no-cost contraception, the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2902","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-affordable-care-act-aca"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2902","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2902"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2902\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2903,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2902\/revisions\/2903"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2902"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}