Well, what do you guys think? Personally, I agree with the majority decision in that women’s “right” to contraceptives isn’t being usurped here since they are still free to buy it wherever they want and no one is restricting their ability to do so. Last time, free birth control wasn’t a “right” per se.
HOWEVER, I also agree with part of Ginsberg’s scathing dissent in that this could very well be a slippery slope of monumental proportions. What other laws will be tossed aside for religious beliefs? What about drug use within a religious setting? Or genital mutilation? I know that the majority decision explicitly stated that this decision was ONLY applicable to this particular scenario, but that always reeks of some sort of politically-motivated reasoning. Stare decisis is as fundamental to the functioning of the Court as anything, and I fail to see how this precedent will be limited to such a narrow scope.
The last time I remember the Court saying that a decision essentially had no precedent applicable to future similar rulings was in Bush v. Gore, and we KNOW that that decision was politically-motivated (as if Rehnquist actually citing a long list of Warren Court precedents of all things is anything but).