There is supreme court precedent that the practical laws of the land have precedent over religious affairs. Fringe fundamentalist Mormons don't sue that the anti-polygamy laws are trampling their religious freedoms, for one, but more importantly for jurisprudence, there was this native american group in Oregon that smoked peyote as part of their religious rituals which did not exempt them from the Controlled Substances Act.

My guess is the court understands the difference between a law intended to shackle religious groups and a law which happens to irk some religions in pursuit of some different aim.

Or the courts don't care about fringe mormons and native americans because they're small isolated groups.

I'm confused though... I thought there was some rider that already took care of... guess that was just abortions.


Which will be another interesting court fight.

Since a number of states have used Obamacare to defacto ban abortions for the poor.   Since Obamacare allows the states to give private health insurance rules... and one that's been passed in about 20 states is  "Health Insurance can not cover abortion."

The native american thing was an actual case. I remember (granted this was AP Government back in senior year of high school) that whatever that was was a landmark case on freedom of religion.

Plus this court has a positive association with "government forcing people to do stuff."

Between their ruling on the broader ACA and their history on the clash between religion and law, the evidence leans in one direction.

Though this court has been known to contradict itself (apparently first sale doctrine applies to college textbooks but not to seeds generated by living plants...)

Obamacare is pretty bullshit. I was reading an article that in California the base price for insurance was like $30-107 (per month) or something for people making 15,600 a year. People making that much don't have that much money to dispose on health care. So what's their option? Pay it, or have their wages garnished. Lose/Lose situation, and I can't wait for someone to overturn such a bullshit proposition.

Oh, I know it was an actual case.  I just meant specifically what I said.   Often times unfortunitly, the court rules not just based on the merits of the case, but the size of the population in which the case effects.

The quiz is mostly specific numbers that no one who hasn't seen the talking-point news article could guess. I was expecting a test on the bill contents and consequences; most of THOSE questions are guessable from content, i.e. would a quiz guy put an All Of The Above if he wasn't going for an ideological stab with it.

Conclusion: American news websites are stupid. All of them.

--

lol at there even being a religious exemption on the bill, or that the religious liberty argument about healthcare is even an issue that can make it to the Federal courts.

Cheaper options will appear that cover less stuff, have higher co-pay and/or it'll be a fudge. 

The ultimate solution is each state developing a basic healthcare premium. It'd basically be tax-funded universal healthcare. SOMEONE has to pay for the care even if they have no insurance (i.e. taxpayers), might as well be a formal plan.

How is religion even linked to this healthcare stuff? what the hell

edit: most of those questions have nothing to do with healthcare! and they are so badly worded. I still managed to get 13 out of 24 (54%) by guessing lol. I done it for fun, despite the fact i'm not American

It's more to see who would pick all of the Above.  All of the above can be good trick answers.

That said, among media scholars and such...  believe it or not the Chrstian Science Monitor is generally seen as one of the most unbiased news sources out there... in general.

Partially because it was specifically founded to combat the scandal based journalism of the era it was founded in.

When you read there articles you generally not they take extreme care to phrase everything in nuetral broad terms and go out of there way to give both points of view.  It's why it's highly respected even by people who are usually sceptical of american media.

For example... this crazy guy who thinks newspapers are controlled by the jewish media.

"All this leaves only one national daily newspaper, The Christian Science Monitor, published in Boston but circulated nationally, with truly objective coverage of the Middle East. The reason is obvious from the title. It is operated, at a loss, by a well-established Protestant denomination and therefore is not answerable to Jewish owners and is not dependent upon Jewish-owned businesses for even a portion of its advertising."

I'd put the CSM up against any news agency from NPR to the BBC to whatever when it comes to unbiased coverage.  At least so far as the "Walter Cronkite" type journalism nonbias goes.

The closest you ever get to anyone criticisng it, is someone dismissing it off hand because of it's name.