In what seems destined to be a blockbuster decision in the making, the Supreme Court has accepted a religious challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The decision could force a reexamination of the Court controversial 2010 ruling in Citizens United in considering whether companies have religious rights to match the speech rights embraced by the Court. The case involves objections from businesses and individuals like David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, who insist that the Act’s required support for contraceptive services violates religious rights. Two cases were accepted: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (13-354); and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (13-356). I will be discussing the cases this morning on CNN.
Under the ACA, non-for-profit religious corporation have an exemption. However, this is a for-profit company that is run according to the family’s religious beliefs. As a large employer, Hobby Lobby is required to provide a range of no-copay contraceptive services. Some 50 companies have challenged the ACA around the country.
Green says that “We do everything we possibly can to be a help to our employees of how that they can structure their life based on biblical principles.” While he does not object to all aspects of the required services, he believes that the government should not dictate such matters to companies. That argument succeeded in Denver with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The court ruled that there is no reason why corporations enjoy speech rights under the first amendment but not religious rights.
The decision created a classic split in the circuits. In Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, the 10th Circuit treated corporations as persons for the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Free Exercise Clause. However, in Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, the Third Circuit ruled that they are not persons for these purposes since corporations do not engage in religious practices or prayer and RFRA does not apply to corporations.
The case could challenge the 5-4 majority of Citizens United, particularly with Justice Anthony Kennedy. There is a sticker shock aspect to the case in terms of its potential if companies can make such religious objections to uniform national regulations. The decision could also shed light on the Court’s view of growing conflicts between non-discrimination laws and religious believes, a subject that I have previously written about in columns and blogs. If corporations can refuse to comply with the ACA on religious grounds, can a bakery refuse to prepare a cake for a same-sex couple on the same grounds? It will also likely interpret the scope and application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The case places the interests in a uniformity of services for women against the religious rights of certain companies. Green notably does not object to 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate but refuses to provide or pay for four of the drugs including Plan B and Ella — or morning-after pills and the week-after pills. His highly specific objection could be used by the Administration to show the implications of recognizing religious rights in companies with every company applying different standards and preconditions for employees.
This has the makings of a major decision that could not only interpret the scope of the ACA but more generally applicable religious rights for companies.
David, A fetus has no relevance to the discussion of birth control.
bettykath wrote: “A fetus has no relevance to the discussion of birth control.”
Why direct this toward me? Randyjet used the term fetus, not me.
Nevertheless, some of your other comments indicate that you do not understand the objection of Hobby Lobby. They do not object to preventative methods of birth control. That is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, but not Hobby Lobby whose owners are not Roman Catholics. Hobby Lobby’s objection is to the abortifacients mandated by Obamacare.
David, You’re red-flagging birth control as murder. It is not. Birth control does not kill babies. One kind of birth control may prevent a zygot from implanting but a zygot isn’t even a blastocyst or an embryo or a fetus or, after nine months and the birth process which allows the breath of life, a baby.
I really don’t understand why legislators and corporations are practicing medicine without a license. Just b/c they are mostly white men with power but no skin in the consequences of their abuses, shouldn’t give them the right to deny women the medical care and/or the insurance coverage they need.
Not all abortions require ultra-sound. Some birth control is used for other health concerns than birth control and there are time when birth control is necessary to prevent a life-threatening pregnancy.
Folks…. OT but a great decision….. A judge presigned orders for removal of children and court held that the judge was acting in an administrative capacity and lost judicial immunity…..
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/michigan/miedce/2:2011cv11190/257168/86/0.pdf
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013311260129
Bruse, go stand in a corner and think about what you just wrote. A time out if you will..
Why should the government be able to force a person, or company to buy something they can’t use or don’t need or don’t want to have. This is communistic
Roberts is Obama’s fault? Sorry there leejcaroll, I believe it was the great decider Dubya that put him in there…Chalk another huge blunder on 43.
Glenn you are absolutely right. At one point,”It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator — still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office — was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts’s intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn’t want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/8/27/13239/5301/elections2008/Obama-Initially-Considered-Voting-to-Confirm-Chief-Justice-Roberts
Maybe that was what I was recalling
Get real: covering contraception doesn’t violate employers’ religious freedom”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/27/obamacare-contraception-supreme-court-religious-freedom
Roberts is Obama’s fault. I recall his saying he knows Roberts is a conservative but he felt that he was (my words cause don’t have the quote) an honorable jurist who would rule on the law and not his conservatism/political leanings. Even when the President tries to do right it ends up biting him, and us, in the you know what.
I knew from the start John Roberts left a huge hole in his decision for the ACA for business to poke huge holes in it. And you can bet it will be 5-4 in their ruling. Of course Republicans don’t legistate from the bench…….LOL…LOL….LOL..LOL…………..
Right Mike A….
And this begs my asking…. What part of doctor patient communication is still privileged….. And the bigger question…. What business it it of mine what someone else is doing….. We have complaints about welfare…. And government funded birth control…. Chicken…. Egg…. I’m just lost….. About why should they care….
I think I recall the owner of Hobby Lobby saying he’d close shop if forced to provide it…. Well…. We haven’t heard walmart make the claims…. Just an employee assistance program that helps folks sign up for welfare and the like….. You gotta love it…. And now…. Opposition to the ACA….
“Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, there is no guarantee that reason, precedent and common sense will prevail.”
And no truer words were ever spoken, Mike A.
I’ve made my views on these issues clear in past posts.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/25/the-corporate-veil-meets-the-first-communion-veil/#more-62100
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/13/contraception-and-separation/#more-45312
Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, there is no guarantee that reason, precedent and common sense will prevail.
david,
you said one thing correctly. Some people who “own” corporations are religious people. However, if corporations are allowed to exempt themselves from any laws on religious grounds, where do you stop? When did Hobby Lobby get baptized? When did Hobby Lobby make its confirmation? Corporations are not people, not withstanding Citizens United. When did Hobby Lobby make its First Communion? Leejcaroll is correct that it will be interesting to see how Scalia tries to jump away from his prior rulings.
rafflaw wrote: “…if corporations are allowed to exempt themselves from any laws on religious grounds, where do you stop?”
Many for-profit corporations like McDonald’s and Jack-in-the-Box and even Teacher’s Unions have been granted exemptions and waivers for non-religious reasons. Why discriminate against a religious understanding of what constitutes murder?
The real problem is that government has no business creating laws that violate the conscience of anyone. The idea of the government forcing someone to commit murder is unconscionable.
I may not agree with their definition of murder, but I can recognize that they view it as murder, and therefore I can understand how government should not force them to be involved with facilitating that action. This is a very small price to pay in order to preserve the plurality of our nation.
The 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Supreme Court has long said this means Americans are entirely free to hold religious beliefs and worship as they choose. But they are not necessarily free to violate what Scalia called “neutral and generally applicable laws” because of a conflict with their religious faith.”
Let’s see if Scalia follows himself or rules for the right as he has so long been doing.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-religion-20131125,0,2545589.story#ixzz2lrGW1SSs
Given Scalia’s lack of consistency in rulings that go against his ideology, I doubt he will have any problem letting Mr Green dictate the sexual practices of his employees. I would also caution Pope Francis that if he continues along his course of practicing what he preaches, Scalia will have no choice but to excommunicate him.
David then you are fine with people like the Twitchell’s who let their child die because they are Christian scientists. (or others: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm
You want it both ways, you allege it is protecting via Hobby Lobby’s decision and you are all for that unless I guess if a person’s religion says let the child die, even after we see that our prayer is resulting in the child getting worse.
leejcaroll wrote: “You want it both ways, you allege it is protecting via Hobby Lobby’s decision and you are all for that unless I guess if a person’s religion says let the child die, even after we see that our prayer is resulting in the child getting worse.”
You make a lot of bad assumptions about what I believe.
That doesn’t mean I don’t think the ACA isn’t a bad idea for other reasons, but we’ll see if some of our prognosticators here were right in that it was a necessary step before universal single-payer health care insurance.
Randy,
Yep. There is nothing about the ACA that violates the Lemon test. It serves a valid secular legislative purpose, does not promote or hinder any particular religion and doesn’t promote excessive government entanglement with religion.
davidm You miss the whole point that the government is NOT forcing any PERSON to do anything. It is mandating that a corporation obey the laws on employment, and other laws which apply to all businesses. The owner has asked the government to grant his property an exemption and privileges to his business by incorporating. Along with those privileges comes DUTIES. It is outrageous that so called conservatives only want the goodies, and NOT the responsibilities. That is the worst case of entitlement disease I have seen.
I have a test for Mr. Green. If he feels so strongly about his religious beliefs in his business, he can make it into a religious NON-PROFIT one. Or he can give it all to the church.
The government forces people all the time to do things that are against their conscience. Just ask the segregationists, tax resisters, pacifists, anti-war folks, etc..Your statement about this is absurd.
ARE wrote: “You miss the whole point that the government is NOT forcing any PERSON to do anything. It is mandating that a corporation obey the laws on employment, and other laws which apply to all businesses.”
The government is forcing a company owned privately by a family to help pay for the murder of unborn children.
The company does not want to block its employees from getting the abortion pills. It simply does not want to facilitate the murders. Is it really so hard to ask people to get their abortion pills without forcing their employers to buy them?
There are so many philosophical and legal errors in davidm stand it is hard to take it seriously. First off it is the STATE which established the corporation and granted it its very existence. That means that ALL of the people represented by us in the form of the government created that corporation. Atheists, Catholics, Protestants etc.. So the owners have obligations along with that privilege of incorporation. Once you ask the state for privileges and protection, the owners lose their sole proprietor rights.
The idea that the employer is buying abortion pills is also absurd. The law does NOT mandate that the corporation go out and buy the medicine, and in FACT most employees still have to pay for a good portion of the health care and medicine. So I suppose that even if the employee pays for 50% or more of the cost, the employers rights trump that of the employee. In short, your position is that the wealthy have superior rights and can dictate to the rest of us.
You also fail since taking your position would allow Christian Scientist owners to refuse medical benefits to their employees and force them to go to CS Reading rooms instead of the hospital. JW owners could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, etc.. In short there is NO end, and we will be left with a dictatorship of the rich over the rest of us in all aspects of our lives.
That you call a fetus a legal person is beyond rational thinking. It is not a person legally or morally, and your opinion is only a religious opinion which you and your kind wish to dictate and force YOUR religious opinion on the rest of us. You insist that something that cannot be even SEEN with the naked eye and that cannot exist without a woman’s womb is a full person and that is only a religious dogma. Not one that is shared by the majority of US citizens or our laws.
randyjet wrote: “First off it is the STATE which established the corporation and granted it its very existence.”
The State does not establish the corporation. The owner does. A corporation is done for different reasons, but speaking for myself, I have created corporations as a way to involve other people in a common project that is based on the motive of creating jobs that create products and services needed by other people. The corporation reflects me or a board of directors, not the State. All the State does is acknowledge my corporation’s existence and collect fees in order to regulate and oversea my activities for the benefit of society.
randyjet wrote: “That means that ALL of the people represented by us in the form of the government created that corporation.”
No. Exactly how did you create Hobby Lobby?
In the words of the actual creator of Hobby Lobby, it was created following these two goals: “1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and 2) to focus on people more than money.”
Following is a video that provides background from the owners of Hobby Lobby:
http://youtu.be/cSrM5mHACmA
randyjet wrote: “You also fail since taking your position would allow Christian Scientist owners to refuse medical benefits to their employees and force them to go to CS Reading rooms instead of the hospital. JW owners could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, etc.. In short there is NO end, and we will be left with a dictatorship of the rich over the rest of us in all aspects of our lives.”
It is part of my political philosophy that government never should force employers to provide any kind of medical benefits. If an employer does provide medical benefits, it should be allowed to determine its own policy in such matters. If a company is run by a JW who views blood transfusions as wrong, or if a Christian Science owner does not believe in the medical profession at all and forgoes any kind of medical plan, then the employee should just buy the type of medical coverage they like from somebody else. Nobody is forcing the employees to do anything or prohibiting them from doing what they want. The employees can choose. Good employers will provide the kind of benefits that the employees that work for them like because it is what is right for them and facilitates good employer-employee relationships.
Following is a video from an employee of Hobby Lobby:
http://youtu.be/k4pL32qQ_3k
randyjet wrote: “That you call a fetus a legal person is beyond rational thinking.”
I don’t call a fetus a legal person because our society does not. However, I can respect the view of someone else who does because I do recognize that the fetus is a potential person. I consider it a rational moral choice that a person would want to facilitate and preserve life after fertilization rather than destroy it.
davidm When you form a corporation it is at the discretion of the state. It used to be that states would revoke corporate charters when they abused them. I think it is high time to get back to giving the death penalty for abusive corporations and revoke their charters. Just how long do you think Hobby Lobby will exist if that happens? Think the owners will be able to keep it alive without that? The owners will be out when that charter is pulled.
In fact, the US government granted subsidies to lots of companies, and it was through the grace of the government that many of our big companies came into existence. It was not the owners alone at all. In my industry, the US government built the airlines with massive subsidies which profited both the US and the shareholders.
ARE wrote: “When you form a corporation it is at the discretion of the state.”
No it’s not, certainly not anymore than filing your birth certificate when you were born. How many corporations have you formed?
ARE wrote: “In fact, the US government granted subsidies to lots of companies, and it was through the grace of the government that many of our big companies came into existence. It was not the owners alone at all. In my industry, the US government built the airlines with massive subsidies which profited both the US and the shareholders.”
You can’t lump all corporations into one like that. Most corporations are of a completely different character. My corporation has never received a government subsidy. I pay more to be a corporation, not less. I also have to perform the service of a tax collector too, without getting paid for it. There is responsibility with owning and operating a corporation, not the free ride you seem to describe.
randyjet wrote: “You insist that something that cannot be even SEEN with the naked eye and that cannot exist without a woman’s womb is a full person and that is only a religious dogma.”
Ridiculous, non-scientific nonsense. The human ovum is the largest cell in the body, larger than a millimeter, clearly visible with the naked eye. Furthermore, it can exist without a woman’s womb. Ever hear of a test tube baby?
There also does exist scientific argumentation for the existence of life in the fertilized ovum, contrary to your false assertion that it is ONLY a religious dogma. Science has proven that all the genetic material necessary for the fertilized egg to grow and develop into a person exists at the moment of conception. With proper environmental conditions and nutrition, the fertilized egg will develop into a person. This knowledge comes from science, not some religious text.
Nevertheless, you are letting your bias against religion get the best of you. Just because someone has a religious reason for his viewpoint, it does not make the viewpoint invalid. The concept of the First Amendment is that people should be free to make up their own minds about religious viewpoints and embrace that which makes the most rational sense to them. To be against a person who embraces a teaching simply because that teaching is religious is to disrespect the First Amendment and the concept of liberty that it was designed to protect.
Ah, Annie said it right. “Humanoid corporations”. The dogpac here got a kick out of that.