WASHINGTON: Republicans called it a win for religious freedom. The decision of the US Supreme Court, they said, is further evidence President Barack Obama’s health care law is deeply flawed.

The claims of victory arrived almost immediately after the high court ruled on Monday that some companies need not provide contraception to women as required by Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

Yet there’s a risk for Republicans in crowing too loudly.

Republicans for years have tried to make inroads with two groups that tend to favour Democrats: women and younger voters. And as popular as the court’s decision will be with the conservative Republican base, it’s likely to be just as unpopular this year and into the 2016 presidential election year with those who depend on insurance to pay for birth control — a group that includes women and younger voters.

A Gallup survey conducted in May found that 90 per cent of Americans, including 88pc of Republicans, see the use of birth control as morally acceptable.

“The thought of your boss telling you what kind of birth control you can and can’t get is offensive and it certainly is motivating to women to vote,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which plans to spend several million dollars this year to campaign for Senate candidates in the November elections when control of Congress will be at stake.

The SC ruled 5-4 that some companies can hold religious objections allowing them to opt out of the health law’s birth control coverage requirement.

While the ruling does not address the heart of the Affordable Care Act, it’s a setback for Democrats and amplifies a long-standing argument from conservatives that the law they call “Obama care” intrudes on religious liberties as part of a larger government overreach.

“This is a clear and decisive defeat against Obama care and a victory for the rights of all Americans,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a fundraising appeal distributed less than three hours after the SC ruling.

But Republican leaders such as Priebus were careful to avoid mentioning the impact on women and their reproductive rights, underscoring the delicate balance the Republican party must strike as it works to improve its image among women.

The party is still recovering from a series of insensitive comments made by Republican candidates in the 2012 election, including Missouri US Senate candidate Todd Akin, whose campaign crumbled after he said women’s bodies were able to avoid pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape”.

“Republicans have to be careful about not appearing as though they’re anti-contraception. This is a constitutional issue,” said Katie Packer Gage, a strategist whose firm advises Republicans on navigating women’s issues. “We have to be very, very cautious as a party.”

Polls suggest that most people — and a larger majority of women — think for-profit companies should be required to cover the cost of birth control.

A Gallup survey conducted in May found that 90 per cent of Americans, including 88pc of Republicans, see the use of birth control as morally acceptable.

Democrats said the ruling would shine a spotlight on access to birth control and dovetail with a strategy by the party to mobilise female voters on issues such as raising the minimum wage and supporting pay equity for women.

In Colorado’s US Senate race, for example, Democratic Senator Mark Udall’s first TV ad noted Republican Representative Cory Gardner’s past sponsorship of a bill to outlaw abortions in cases of rape and incest and support for an effort to grant an embryo the same legal rights as a person, which could have outlawed some types of birth control and all abortions.

Gardner now says he opposes the “personhood” measure.

In Iowa, Democrats have signalled plans to highlight Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst’s support of a personhood amendment to the state’s constitution.

In Michigan, Democrats backing Senate candidate Gary Peters have sought to tarnish Republican Terri Lynn Land’s record on reproductive rights, prompting her to air her own ad in April declaring: “As a woman, I might know a little bit more about women than Gary Peters”.

It won’t be clear until November whether women will respond to such appeals. Fewer young women typically vote in non-presidential elections compared with presidential years.

And they are particularly disengaged from this year’s races: 63pc of women under age 30 in an AP-GfK poll conducted before the ruling reported they “don’t care very much” which party wins control of Congress. Just 21pc said they were certain to vote in November.

Writing for the court’s conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito suggested the White House could resolve the issue by broadening a birth control compromise it created earlier for religion-oriented non-profit organisations.

In those cases a third party — usually an insurer — can cover contraceptives at no charge to the affected employees, and the government absorbs the cost.

But White House spokesman Josh Earnest signalled the administration may not take that route.

Instead, he challenged Congress to pass legislation to address the coverage gap for women.

That could put some Republicans in a difficult spot politically, but not right away.

For now, they’re enjoying what many viewed as a win. “When Obama care and its impact on people is front and centre in the political debate, it’s just not good news for Democrats,” Republican strategist Kevin Madden said.—AP

Published in Dawn, July 2nd, 2014