Pictured are Congresswoman Marcia L. Fudge, a Warrensville Heights Democrat who also chairs the Congressional Black Caucus of Blacks in Congreess (in dark blue suit and eye glasses) and Plan Parenthhod President Cecile Richards

By Kathy Wray Coleman, editor-in-chief, Cleveland Urban News. Com and The Cleveland Urban News.Com Blog, Ohio's Most Read Online Black Newspaper and Newspaper Blog, Tel: (216) 659-0473 Kathy Wray Coleman is  a community activist and 20 year investigative journalist who trained for 17 years at the Call and Post Newspaper in Cleveland, Ohio. (www.clevelandurbannews.com) / (www.kathywraycolemanonlinenewsblog.com)

WASHINGTON, D.C.- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday, June 30, in a split 5-4 split decision, against the Affordable Care Act birth control mandate in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, determining  that women employees have no right to contraceptives coverage under the act.

Named as a plaintiff in her official government role, Silvia Matthews Burwell is the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The Obama administration sued, with Burwell as the plaintiff,  in response to an appeals court order that negated the federal government's birth control mandate under the Affordable Care Act, a mandate that required for-profit employers or  corporations like the Hobby Lobby Craft stores to provide employees access to contraceptives .

The high court said in an opinion authored  by Justice Samuel Alito, that the birth control mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act  (RFRA) because it is overly restrictive, and that there are least restrictive means that the federal government must exercise.

The case is a celebrated case in which the corporation defendant, Hobby Lobby,  argued that requiring it to provide birth control under the Affordable Act violates its company's religious beliefs under the First Amendment and under the RFRA. Also at issue, was the high court determination of Hobby Lobby as an individual with standing to sue, an argument the Obama administration rejects, and said, without sanctioning, that for-profit companies lack standing to sue under RFRA.

While the high court ruling is based on the court's assessment that the federal government must find a least restrictive way to exercise its contraceptives mandate per the RFRA, the ruling did not, however, adress the argument by Hobby Lobby that the mandate violates its religious beliefs rights pursuant to the First Amendment.

And though opponents of the ruling argue that it is narrowly tailored,  legal experts say it opens the flood gates for any private employer to use religion as a basis to deny women contraceptives-coverage.

The decision comes as a win for religious conservatives, and big business, and a blow to women's rights issues and the Obama administration that has championed the Affordable Care Act, a federal law enacted by Congress in 2010, and the first of its kind universal health care legislation that marks one of the hallmarks of the Obama presidency. (Editor's note: Click on the following link to read the entire decision Burwell v. Hobby Lobby )

11th Congressional District Congresswoman Marcia L. Fudge, a Warrensville Heights , Ohio Democrat who also chairs the Congressional Black Caucus of Blacks in Congress and whose majority Black congressional district includes the largely Black cities of Cleveland, East Cleveland, and Warrensville Heights,  said in a press release to Cleveland Urban News.Com, Ohio's leader in Black digital news, that she is disappointed with the decision.

"The Supreme Court decided that certain owners of for-profit companies can choose which laws to obey and to deny coverage of certain health benefits, hampering women's ability to exercise their reproductive rights, " said Fudge."This decision implies that corporations are indeed people and the religious views of certain corporate CEO's are more important than the beliefs and personal care decisions of their families."

Women's rights groups across the nation were equally appalled with the ruling.

“Today, the Supreme Court ruled against American women and families, giving bosses the right to discriminate against women and deny their employees access to birth control coverage," said Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards in a press release.

Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters after the ruling came down that while the president does not agree with the decision, that his administration will obviously comply with the court order.

Chief Justice John Roberts,  the swing vote that sanctioned the Affordable Care Act in 2012 as passing constitutional muster in general,  voted with the relatively conservative majority as he usually does, including justices Alito, Anton Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,  and Clarence Thomas, the only Black on the court, and who routinely sides against women and Blacks.

Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both Sotamayor and Kagan appointed by Obama, dissented.

Under Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, most employers must provide access to contraceptives for female employees, though the Obama administration has given exemptions for churches and other non-profit organizations, schools and religious hospitals.

Corporate businesses that do not qualify for an exemption have quipped and have used the religious argument that contraceptives are abortion and that they are, in fact, paying for abortion against their religious beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment.

Roberts  had asked during oral arguments why the Obama administration would believe the federal government could require religious employers subject to the act to give up religious freedoms, including the option to deny women employees birth control on religious grounds.

Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion and argued that the government has a compelling interest in providing birth control at no cost under the Affordable Care Act.

"President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them," said Ginsburg in her dissent. "Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of women that are employed by these companies."

Ginsburg also agreed in the dissent with the argument by the Obama administration's  argument that for-profit companies cannot assert religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the only aspect of the dissent that Sotomayor and Breyer dissented on, which is a paragraph.

(www.clevelandurbannews.com) / (www.kathywraycolemanonlinenewsblog.com)