The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that employers with religious exemptions can opt out of providing contraception coverage under Obamacare. Separation of church and state? Not so much.
Justice Ginsberg, known for her biting dissents, clearly expresses her disappointment, even disgust, with her colleagues. She raises some sound points - what about female employees who don't hold their employers' beliefs about access to contraceptive coverage? It is not such an unlikely situation that a company with a strong christian ideological stance might employ employees who don't necessarily share their beliefs. And what about the implications? Would this exemption extend to employers with religiously based objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses) or antidepressants (scientologists)? She also rightly notes, "approving some religious claims while deeming other unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another." It sure could be. Bad day for women's health and jurisprudence generally it seems.
The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield