Supreme Court’s ruling causes deeply divided controversy

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – It’s back to the drawing board on contraceptive coverage for the White House following Monday's Supreme Court ruling.

The ruling finds the Affordable Care Act "Contraceptive Mandate" violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Now private companies, like Hobby Lobby, can opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to their employees, under some circumstances.

RELATED: Area businesses weigh in on Supreme Court’s decision to side with Hobby Lobby

Some, like the founder of Hobby Lobby, are calling Monday's ruling a win for family businesses and for all who seek to live out their faith. Others say the ruling jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies and a women's access to essential health care.

Monday's deeply divided Supreme Court decision deals a legal and political setback for a controversial part of the Obama administration's Healthcare Reform Law.

Private companies like Hobby Lobby, who's owners religious beliefs opposes offering forms of birth control they believe cause abortions, don't have to provide it for employees.

"What it does for these patients is forces them to buy their medications if they are using birth control other than for birth control," said Kansas City family practitioner James D'Angelo.

D'Angelo says the ruling could restrict access to health care and benefits birth control provides outside of just family planning.

"If a company doesn't want to pay for birth control, right or wrong, okay maybe they have that option but there are other treatments that are, you know, polycystic ovarian disease is a terrible disease for a young girl. Irregular menstrual periods, menstrual cramping, pain, and you're going to deny them a medication, or worse, make them pay for it," said Dr. D'Angelo.

Employee benefits attorney Brian Johnston says the ruling leaves the door open for other employers to make benefit decisions based on any variety of religious beliefs.

Johnston also says it's a slippery slope that could open the door.

"It does raise the questions as far as, would other people of faith as far as Scientologists, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, those who have other religious beliefs around other health issues, can they raise other issues now along these similar lines," said Johnston.

However supporters of the decision say the court did not deny access to contraceptives only made it clear the government could not force some private companies to offer them.

Republican representative James Lankford of Oklahoma said the burden is back on the federal government if it feels contraception is an essential part of health care coverage.