Supreme Court delays contraception mandate for two Catholic nonprofits
December 31st, 2013
06:33 PM ET

Supreme Court delays contraception mandate for two Catholic nonprofits

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

Washington (CNN)–
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily exempted two Catholic Church-affiliated nonprofits from requirements to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees under the Affordable Care Act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a brief order late Tuesday, hours before the controversial Obama administration mandates were set to go into effect.

The Little Sisters of the Poor – a charity congregation of Roman Catholic women in Denver – and the Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services had filed a lawsuit objecting to the contraception mandate, saying it violated their religious and moral beliefs. Some religious-affiliated groups were required to comply with contraception coverage or face hefty fines.

Sotomayor said the two groups were exempted from the mandates until at least Friday, when the federal government faces a deadline to file a legal response in the case.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bishops • Catholic Church • Christianity • Courts • Pope Francis

soundoff (1,682 Responses)
  1. children of Israel

    When it comes to slavery in the Bible, what nationality of people enslaved the so called white man? Did whites enslaved their own kind, while other caucasians enslaved the people of color, why did they do that.

    January 1, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      Might want to check the history of slavery before getting "all biblical" about it.

      January 1, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
  2. VIE

    Why are atheists bitter against God?

    January 1, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
    • Rodents for Romney

      Why do people who actually know no atheists presume such nonsense ?
      Do you "hate" the teapot orbiting the sun ?

      January 1, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
      • VIE

        I'm not. There is no teapot orbiting the sun.

        January 1, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
        • unvie

          Prove it!

          January 1, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • VIE

          It seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it.

          January 1, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • unvie

          yep – just like that junk about someone walking on water

          January 1, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
        • Rodents for Romney

          Exactly. You don't hate something that doesn't exist.
          God doesn't exist.
          Therefore one can not hate what doesn't exist.
          I know that's hard for you. Just think real hard.

          January 1, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
  3. children of Israel

    Why did God destroy the earth by the way of a flood? *Genesis 6:5-7 And God saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    January 1, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
    • Rodents for Romney

      If he were really omniscient he would have known. Oops.

      January 1, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      The Flood was myth. As were Noah and Abraham as was Moses.

      January 1, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
  4. Reality # 2

    Providing "free" condoms that cost less than 40 cents each? "Free" Pills that cost less than a dollar each? Give us a break !!

    Vasectomies ? Tubal sterilization ? Depends on the income of said individuals.

    Next topic.

    January 1, 2014 at 9:51 pm |
    • The REAL Reality

      Those who know nothing about the many uses that the pill is used for other than contraception should JUST SHUT THE HELL UP.

      Next topic.

      January 1, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
      • Reality # 2

        Tis the cost not the use.

        January 1, 2014 at 11:37 pm |
  5. children of Israel

    Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

    January 1, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      The historic value of said passages are nil. 1) Mark 12:18-27 = Matt 22:23-33 = Luke 20:27-40

      See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb262.html and Professor Gerd Ludemann's analysis in his book, Jesus after 2000 Years, pp. 83-84.

      January 1, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
  6. Alias

    I've never understood why this is enen a discussion.
    Follow the law. If a religion cannot obey the law, they should not be allowed to operate.

    January 1, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
    • Bender Bending Rodriguez

      If that happens, the world would be deprived of two nonprofit organizations.

      January 1, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
      • Alias

        Please enlighten me as to what non-profit groups cannot operate within the law?

        January 1, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
        • Bender Bending Rodriguez

          The two noted in this article.

          January 1, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • Alias

          why can't they obey the law???

          January 1, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • Bender Bending Rodriguez

          The Catholic church is against contraceptives.

          January 1, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • Observer

          Bender Bending Rodriguez

          "The Catholic church is against contraceptives."

          Catholic church, yes. Catholic women, not nearly so much.

          January 1, 2014 at 8:00 pm |
        • Alias

          So when did they change the law to say charities had to use contraception?

          January 1, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
        • Bender Bending Rodriguez

          I wouldn't think so. I don't have any figures in front of me but I would assume most Catholics would disagree with the church in this regard.

          January 1, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
        • Bender Bending Rodriguez

          My last comment was directed to observer.

          Alias-that's a good question. I'm not sure why the little sisters of the poor would have to distribute contraceptives. Anyone know what their beef is?

          January 1, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
        • Alias

          If the religous don't want to use contraception, fine.
          They have no right to keep others from using it.
          Why is this complicated?

          January 1, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
        • Bender Bending Rodriguez

          I'm guessing that they have to provide them by law. That's why they're objecting to it.

          January 1, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
        • Alias

          Some baptist churches don't dance.
          Muslims don't drink alcohol.
          Neither group has the right to tell the rest of us not to drink and dance. Isn't this the same thing?

          No wait, this is different. Doctors can prescribe birth control pills for other things.

          January 1, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
        • Alias

          We can dance if we want to.
          We can leave your cult behind.
          'Cause your cult don't dance,
          and if they don't dance then they're no cult of mine.

          January 1, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
        • Bender Bending Rodriguez

          I might be wrong but I believe I read that the Catholic Church allows the use of birth control pills for controlling a woman's period.

          January 1, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hey Bender it is not that pill it is the DAY AFTER pill that is the major rub !

          January 1, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
        • Bender Bending Rodriguez

          Oh, that would make sense. But, how does this affect the little sisters of the poor? Why would they have to distribute those pills?

          January 1, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
        • Science Works


          They are not distributing them.

          It is part of an earned benefit which usually has a monetary contribution from the employees pay.

          January 1, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
      • JL

        Bull. They aren't non – profit. Those hospitals take in billions. They shouldn't be designated non – profit BECAUSE THEYRE NOT!! How dare they try and force their employees to conform to THEIR religious rules.

        January 1, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Because it's a lot easier (and more self-serving) to follow god's example than his commandments. God forces people to do what he wants them to do and then he tortures them if they don't do what he wants. Who wouldn't want to behave like that?

          January 1, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • Bender Bending Rodriguez

          That's what I am confused about. Neither group is a hospital.

          January 1, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
        • JL

          Beliefs aside, they've been coddled for FAR too long. Tax their asses.

          January 1, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
        • JL

          They both run establishments that hire employees. Enough employees to fall under the ACA mandates. Good gravy , they MAKE A PROFIT.

          January 1, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
        • Bender Bending Rodriguez

          That's what I am confused about. Neither group is a hospital. Correct me if I am wrong

          January 1, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
        • The REAL Reality

          The groups themselves aren't hospitals any more than nurses are hospitals. GET IT??

          January 1, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      Our law includes the right to an appeal. The Sisters of the Poor appealed. A SCOTUS judge agreed to a hold. The full SCOTUS will no doubt rule on the appeal but one assumes the economics of contraception will be the deciding factor where "free" condoms and/or Pills will not be covered under the ACA whereas vasectomies and tubular sterilization will.

      January 1, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
      • The REAL Reality

        Non freaking sense. If their employees aren't Catholics, they have no right to deny them full benefits.

        The RCC is against tubal ligation and vasectomies for people of child-bearing age, also.

        And you ignorant git, if it is a part of their compensation packages, ITS NOT FREAKING FREE. Another dolt that doesn't understand how insurance works....

        January 1, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
        • Reality # 2

          Note that "free" is in quotation marks.

          January 1, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • Reality # 2

          The most effective forms of co-ntraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

          – (Abstinence, 0% failure rate) zero cost
          – (Ma-sturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate) zero cost

          Followed by: (the two most widely used forms of c-ontraception)

          The Pill, at 0.3 percent) (33,000 unplanned pregnancies)

          Male c-ondom at 2.0 percent (138,000 unplanned pregnancies)

          So where is the problem?


          Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy


          Pill……… 8.7 (resulting in one million unplanned pregnancies- the Pill was not taken daily was the major reason for the high failure rate)

          Male condom ……….17.4 (resulting in one million unplanned pregnancies- the condom was available but was not used is the major reason for the high failure rate)

          All the numbers are posted on line by Guttmacher if you want to run the calculations.

          So again we see the BRUTAL EFFECTS OF STUPIDITY!!!! And giving out "free" condoms and Pills will not solve the STUPIDITY problems.

          January 1, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
  7. God. Yes, THE God

    I have decided that the whole Jesus/New Testament was a total flop. I have sonny say "Judge not" and my followers all judge. They only obey what is convenient for them and rage at others who do not obey. My followers are a joke. And honestly, it's much more boring for me, having to sit back and watch, and not get royally pissed of and slaughter first-borns and towns and stuff. The fun is gone.

    SO, with that in mind, I am repealing the New Testament and we are back on the Old Testament. No shellfish, stone your mouthy teenager to death, and get ready for a bunch of arbitrary massacre. The good ole days are back!

    January 1, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Awesome. There's some teenagers that need a good beating next door because they make grilled cheese sandwiches on the Sabbath, and I really need a slave I can beat whenever I want. As long as he survives for at least three days, right? Cool.

      January 1, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
    • Woody

      Does this mean we're going back to cutting the throats of cute little lambs for sacrifices to you? PETA will not be amused. You may have to throw a few lightning bolts at them to keep them in line.

      January 1, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      o The citizens of the USA judge every day as noted by the US Supreme Court, State Supreme courts and analogous judicial/jury venues across this great land.

      And there is some question as to whether Jesus even uttered Matt 7:1. For example, see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb118.html

      January 1, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
  8. Rodents for Romney

    The majority of American Catholic women of childbearing age use birth control. THEY ARE the church. The church is not the hierarchy. The church, therefore DOES approve of birth control. The Pontifical Commission of Paul VI recommended reversing the church's stand on BC. Read it. There is NO WAY a clump of cells with no neural tube, and no brain is a human person. It's a "potential" person, in the same way an unfertilized egg is a "potential" person.

    January 1, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
  9. Reality # 2

    Beyond all the "free" condoms and Pills :

    The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

    Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

    The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

    : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

    Added information before making your next move:

    "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

    See also: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/opinion/bolan-se-xual-health/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

    And from:
    "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about (even though is becoming a major cause of throat cancer)," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (Maybe it should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

    Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

    The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

    – (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
    – (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

    Followed by:

    One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
    Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
    The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
    Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
    IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

    Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

    January 1, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
  10. tallulah13

    Should anyone wonder why atheists have become more vocal in their criticism of religion, you need look no further than this article. No religious group should be allowed to put their personal belief above the law of the land. It goes against everything this nation stands for. If a person wishes to operate a for-profit business, then they are subject to the laws that pertain to all businesses. Religion should never be allowed as an excuse to break or ignore the law.

    January 1, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
    • Topher

      But should the government be able to infringe on a religious belief?

      January 1, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        Should a religion be able to flout the law of the land and overrule the government?

        January 1, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
      • Saraswati

        If religion declares ritual child molestation part of their creed are you good with that? Human sacriffice?


        Then you are willing to restrict religion.

        Freedom of religion doesn't mean "anything goes". It never has and never will. It means that adults can believe what they want and disseminate that information and that in religious contexts they can do as they wish. But when driving down the road you stay on the right even if your religion says otherwise.

        January 1, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
      • Topher

        So what we've got is an infinite regress in a way. So if government would stop infringing on religion, religion wouldn't have to fight the laws made.

        January 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Why won't you answer my question, Topher?

          January 1, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • Topher

          Which question, about if a religion should overrule the law of the land? It should if the law infringes on the religion. They aren't supposed to do that in the first place.

          January 1, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          So where do you draw the line? Murder? Can a religion that believes in human sacrifice be able to carry that out? Slavery?

          Are you really saying that religions should have the power to overrule the government? What if one religion says that all girl fetuses should be aborted and another religion says that all boy fetuses should be aborted? Do we allow them to have that right over everyone in the country?

          You don't seem to be thinking about any consequences, here.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • Topher

          Cpt. Obvious

          "So where do you draw the line? Murder? Can a religion that believes in human sacrifice be able to carry that out? Slavery?"

          It comes down to morality. Is murder wrong? Of course. And that's part of the Catholics argument here.

          "Are you really saying that religions should have the power to overrule the government?"

          Depends on what the law is going after.

          "What if one religion says that all girl fetuses should be aborted and another religion says that all boy fetuses should be aborted? Do we allow them to have that right over everyone in the country?"

          Nope. Morality. Murder is wrong.

          "You don't seem to be thinking about any consequences, here."

          You're kinda going to an extreme here. We're talking about the government forcing you to do something you hold to be morally wrong.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Topher, you silly believer, you claim that YOUR religion defines morality. What about believers of other religions who believe the same thing you do: that THEIR religion defines morality?

          How are you so blind to your own hypocrisy? You want your religion to define morality, but you don't want another religion defining morality. You don't want to let other religions follow their morality, but you want them to follow your morality.

          Your reasoning sounds identical to that of the fundamentalist muslims. Did you learn at the feet of bin Laden?

          January 1, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • Topher

          So now the question comes down to where does morality come from?

          January 1, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • Topher

          I claim God gave it to us, yes. If there isn't a higher moral-law giver, "morality" just becomes my opinion verses yours.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • Topher

          According to you, where does morality come from?

          January 1, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Different religions have different gods and different "morality." Let me guess, you want the government and religion to follow your religion's opinions on morality? So YOUR religion is the only one that can get away with disobeying the law. Your religion is the law. Your religion is above the government. Your religions is the government–according to EVERY WORD you have written in this thread.

          How sad that you cannot fathom the depth of your own ignorance of your own hypocrisy.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • Topher

          Technically, the government already uses Christian morality as its guide.

          Now, please answer my question.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • Robert

          Morality came from people. It always has. It is a social construct created for the purposes of maintaining desired behaviors within a social group.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • Topher

          So genocide is morally OK?

          January 1, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Topher, Government is ALWAYS infringing on religion – just not so often your own. Want to be sure your daughters word is worth less than your son's in court per Islamic law? No go. The state is infringing. Want to sell your children to protect them from evil demons? No go. Want to practice FGM on 13 year olds? Damn that government interference.

          Because Christians dominate you have had the privilidge of living in a fantasy that government doesn't interfere with religion. Well it does, always has, and always will. What you want is a government that only interferes in ways appropriate to your Christian view.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • Topher

          Sure. I agree ... when it interferes with morality. As those do.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • Sure

          @Topher: "So genocide is morally OK?"

          Your god enjoyed doing it repeatedly, and intends to go fro the great genocide at the end. Then run an eternal Auschwitz for billons of people. How can a being who acts like that and created such a wretched morality in the Old Testament be the source of morality.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • Robert

          You are kind of stretching the concept of "morality" but in a word yes. Certain peoples have committed genocide and have never considered it to be wrong. Athens committed it as did the Roman Empire. In fact is you check your Bible in chapter 31 of Numbers the Israelites commit genocide.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Morality is a societal concept defined by the most influential members of a society. In many cases in history, morality has been defined by the ones claiming to be able to interpret the will of the "god" in which they believe. See ancient greece and the like.

          People can claim that morality comes from god, but it's always humans who are defining what they believe that some invisible and undetectable god wants or doesn't want.

          January 1, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • Observer


          "Technically, the government already uses Christian morality as its guide."

          lol. If it did, we'd still have slavery; discrimination against women; discrimination against the handicapped; selling our daughters into slavery; beating children with rods. etc.

          FORTUNATELY, we don't use the Bible as a guide for our laws.

          January 1, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • wesleyan snake handlers?

          agreed topher the phoney.

          January 2, 2014 at 8:31 am |
        • wesleyan snake handlers?

          what is religion?

          January 2, 2014 at 8:32 am |
        • horace of harrison

          i don't believe in criticizing criminals who r athies

          January 2, 2014 at 8:40 am |
      • Topher


        That's kind of a straw man, don't you think?

        January 1, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Nope. Are you willing or not to restrict religions? Where do you draw the line on what laws a religion should or shouldn't follow?

          January 1, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • Topher

          It's too broad of a question, dude. Would I restrict them on something like human sacrifice? Of course. Why? Because murder is morally wrong.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Who defines what is moral? Religion or the law? If it's religion, and you say that they don't have to follow the law, then any religion who thinks human sacrifice is moral has the right to kill people and, according to you, they can do that because the law has no jurisd.i.ction over a religion doing something that they define as moral.

          Your position is hypocritical and untenable.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Yeah, Topher, because no religion has ever practiced ritual sacrifice or abuse? Really?

          Even if you imagined universe were true, btw, it would be an academic exercise not a straw man. If you really are unaware of religions that have practiced these things, and in some places (see Kali rites) still do today let me know, but for now I'm going to have faith in your ability to educate yourself.

          January 1, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • Larry

          Considering how astoundingly poorly religious law worked wherever it was tried, for example modern Middle East, Cromwell's England, and Medeival Europe, it is safe to say that letting religion have political power and control of law is a disaster. Which the founding fathers knew.

          We are so lucky for the Enlightenment, the basis of modern society (even though Christians love to claim it was really them. Then ones who aggressively fought against it).

          January 1, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
      • Robert

        A company is not a person. People have a freedom of religion.

        January 1, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
      • Petra

        You think that religions should be profitable, Topher? Then they can pay taxes. End of story.

        January 1, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
      • Alias

        YES. If a religion is breaking the law, they should be held accountable.
        Slavery and child abuse are allowed in the bible.

        January 1, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
      • EvolvedDNA

        Topher why is religious "belief" of more importance than any other belief? and why should society cater to it at all? its just a belief that has zero basis in fact anyway..

        January 1, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
  11. guest

    this sounds so silly to me. What I don’t understand is: just because there is a clause saying that the insurance must provide contraceptives, does that mean they have to be used? Or does it raise the cost of insurance?

    January 1, 2014 at 11:51 am |
    • Saraswati

      It decreases the cost to insurance companies because a well contraceptivized client is a cheap client. They don't pass on the savings though since it would look bad to say "we charge less to people using contraceptives". So no one is "paying for" anything here. But religious fanatics tend to be idiots anyway so they don't and won't get it.

      January 1, 2014 at 11:56 am |
      • guest

        I don’t think this is a idiotic religious fanatic thing, I think it is a ‘Catholic’ control issue.

        January 1, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • Victor Edwards

          Were it really a "group of nuns," I might even go with the ruling. But that "group of nuns" is likely the proverbial nose of the horse in the barn door, and it probably extends to hundreds of so-called "religious-affiliated" out and out profit oriented Catholic businesses, taking advantage of such exemptions to avoid paying taxes on their businesses. Exempt just that small group of nuns and not any businesses that are an extension of that deception and I am in agreement.

          January 1, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
      • Michael Armstrong

        World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.59% (of which Roman Catholic 18.85%, Protestant 8.15%, Orthodox 4.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.2%, Hindu 15.0%, Buddhist 7.1%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.2%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01%. (2010 est.).[1]

        90% of the world will never "get it",....In the US we are fortunate to have an opinion and some remaining freedom of speech. In 100 years this may not exist as the world over populates and Muslim faith will quadruple. Enjoy the freedoms protected by our fighting men and woman,......who happen to be part of the 90%,.., and aren't afraid to die so we can all share an opinion or a thought.

        January 1, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Michael, it seems that you would like me to believe a certain way and perform certain actions. Could you please specify? Thanks.

          Also, what is "it" that most people don't get? I would appreciate some clarification.

          January 1, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
        • guest

          Cpt. Obvious, maybe you need to read a little better; she never said any such thing.

          January 1, 2014 at 9:33 pm |
    • fred

      Agree...heck I'm a guy & my policy contains maternity coverage, nice to know it's there in the event a miracle occurs. It's n ecomonies of scale thing after all.

      January 1, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
      • fred

        Happy New Year fred !
        Rates once reflected the risk associated with the covered individual. Like getting a speeding ticket you get the traffic fine then your insurance rates go up because of your life style and soon no one would cover you and you can no longer drive. Without these incentives the responsible people always pick up the tab for those who make bad choices.

        January 1, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • Saraswati

          As a lesbian not seeking to have kids my chances of needing maternity coverage are about the same as yours. Different rates for me and straight women? Higher for Catholics unwilling to get an abortion?

          And are you seriously comparing childbearing to speeding and other pointless high risk behaviors? These women bear the children who will pay your social security and keep the country running in our old age. I'm not for people having 15 kids, but as a society we want women to reproduce at moderate rates, not to punish them for it.

          January 1, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • MLH

        It always did. That's how freaking insurance works. My insurance covers erectile dysfunction, and I'm female...

        January 1, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Yeah, I'm pretty sick of listening to whining from people who not only don't know how insurance works but don't understand how a modern society works. I pay a ton for public schools for kids I don't have, No whining. This is how society works. I pay for prisons that men are far more likely to use. Do I complain that based on our odds of criminal behavior we women should pay less? I pay for social welfare benefits I never use, and no people who have paid for social security knowing their odds of living long enough to use it were slim. I pay for roads I've never driven on...the way some people talk you'd think they'd toll every road in their town! We live in a society and a heck of a lot of our costs are communal. That's how the modern world works and it isn't going to change because we really are that interdependent. If a bunch of ignorant fools want to pretend they live on a fro tier someplace they'd better darn well find such a place, because as far as I know it doesn't exist on this planet.

          January 1, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
  12. Just Herb

    As I recall from an early history the early birth control for nuns forced by priests in the middle ages was to throw the infants down wells.

    January 1, 2014 at 11:49 am |
    • Ggggghg

      Citation. I insist

      January 1, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
  13. grotethegreat

    There is no issue here, since the Little Sisters can legally opt out of the mandate without penalty. The Christian Science Monitor reported this much better: "The appeals court panel said that Little Sisters of the Poor could opt out of the mandate and that because the group’s health insurance is considered a “church plan,” the Little Sisters would not be subject to fines or penalties for noncompliance.

    “Therefore, there is no enforceable obligation … for any of the Plaintiffs to provide any of the objectionable coverage,” the appeals court said.

    January 1, 2014 at 11:46 am |
  14. sgreco

    I'm fine with religious companies denying healthcare to their employees based on their religion just so long as non-christian or secular companies can do the same thing to christian employees.

    Fair is fair.

    January 1, 2014 at 11:28 am |
    • Coolsmiles

      guess what, companies can't discriminate based on religion....but you knew that right? Lefty...

      January 1, 2014 at 11:50 am |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        Yeah, sgreco just doesn't get it. A religious company doesn't have to follow any laws that they don't want to follow because they can just claim religious exemption/separation of church and state, but a nonreligious company does have to follow the laws and not discriminate.

        sgreco, you have to be a religious company to get away with murder. You can't do it as just a normal business, stupid.

        January 1, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
      • Notta Catholic

        Oh yeah? Then what is this about? Forcing Non-Catholics working at their vaulted insti.tutions to follow their rules... But you knew that, didn't you, conservitard?

        January 1, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
  15. Topher

    REALLY, CNN?! Duck Dynasty is your lead story on New Year's Day?

    January 1, 2014 at 11:27 am |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Really, Topher, you post that comment on an article about the nation's court and a new law?

      January 1, 2014 at 11:28 am |
    • guest

      I see no story about 'Duck Dynasty', are we on the same page?

      January 1, 2014 at 11:58 am |
    • Curious

      You are not a jailhouse born again convert, correct. Yet you didn't come to jesus until later in life. What was your epiphany? Did it come from some sort of crisis in your life or the influence of another person? You have abandoned a great deal of knowledge that mankind has discovered to believe as you do, it would be of interest to find out how you got to where you are now.

      January 1, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
      • Topher


        What knowledge have I abandoned? I keep being told this, but when asked, I never receive a response.

        No, I'm not a jailhouse convert. It was nothing that interesting.

        January 1, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • sam stone

          you deny logic, gopher.

          you prattle on about how just god is

          then do everything you can to avoid this justice

          you are a coward

          January 1, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
  16. feudi pandola

    Great decision for liberty. Thank you Justice Sotomayor.

    January 1, 2014 at 11:19 am |
    • lol??

      That statue was a payback, err Trojan horse, by the French for not gettin' paid for decades on loans in the first war. You owe?? You're not free.

      January 1, 2014 at 11:43 am |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Well, we'd not want the church to have to actually obey the laws of the land. What would this country be if religion couldn't boss around the government?

      January 1, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
  17. children of Israel

    What did wicked do, they put in God we trust on the tribute money. Presidents are being tributed, is that a lie? But America, never told you what god they were worshipping. America loves church doctrine religion, but hate the word of God his scriptures of laws, statutes and commandments. Glory to Ahayah God I AM in the name of his Son Yashiya the Christ. One God one Lord, blessed be the Lord God of Israel, the mighty One of Jacob our Redeemer and Saviour.

    January 1, 2014 at 10:57 am |
    • Rodents for Romney

      Out of our pills I see.

      January 1, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
  18. children of Israel

    The black horse are the people of color, who hold the balance of the world in their hands. They were sold into slavery for oil and wine, a bartering system. – Joel 3:3 And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink. * St. Matthew 20:13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? *St. Matthew 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought him a penny.

    January 1, 2014 at 10:36 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.