The Supreme Court finished its term with its usual dramatic flair with the release of the long-waited decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores (which is consolidated with Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius). The two cases represent a classic split in the circuits with the Tenth Circuit agreeing with Hobby Lobby as to the religious claims of the company while the Third Circuit ruled against such claims by Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. The Court ruled that the Hobby Lobby does have religious rights, but limited the decision to closely-held corporations. Where Citizen’s United recognized that corporations have free speech rights like individuals, Hobby Lobby would do the same thing for religious rights. I will be running a column in the Los Angeles Times in the morning not just addressing this ruling but, once again, highlighting what I consider a far more important case that will be decided just a couple blocks away in the D.C. Circuit — Halbig v. Sebelius. I will be discussing the decisions today at CNN starting at 10 am and continuing to the discussion at 1 pm with Wolf Blitzer.
Hobby Lobby is a fascinating case involving the retail arts and craft chain founded by David Green and owned by his family, which also happen to be Evangelical Christians. The Greens actually do not object to all of the 20 forms of birth control under the ACA. However, they are religiously opposed to supplying four methods: morning-after pills Plan B and Ella as well as two kinds of inter-uterine devices (or IUDs). (The Conestoga company is smaller and owed by Hahn family, who are Mennonite Christians) At a running fine of $100 per employee, Hobby Lobby estimates that the federal mandate would cost it about $1.3 million a day, or roughly $475 million a year.
The religious beliefs of the family are formally integrated into their company: Green family members signed a formal commitment to run the stores according to Christian religious principles, including closing on Sunday, advertising their religious orientation. The company even plays religious music inside their stores.
The Greens challenged the provisions under the and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which imposes a high standard of strict scrutiny for the government to meet when a neutral law “substantially burden[s] a person’s exercise of religion”. (Note some amicus briefs suggest that the mandatory plan should also be barred for these purpose under the Establishment Clause). In 2013, United States District Court Judge Joe Heaton granted the company a temporary exemption from the contraceptive-providing mandate. (Conestoga directly raises free exercise arguments).
In an interesting wrinkle, an April article in Mother Jones alleged that Hobby Lobby’s employee retirement plan has more than $73M invested in mutual funds which include manufacturers of some fo the very contraception devices or drugs cited in the complaint.
The decision has sweeping application – well beyond these companies or the 49 for-profit corporations that have claimed such exemptions. The ruling addresses the very essence of a religious claim and the very essence of a corporate entity.
Closely-held corporations are not as limited as it might seem. I agree with Ginsberg that the implications are sweeping. The closely-held corporations represent a huge number of businesses. As I mentioned on CNN, the large corporations are the least likely to demand such exemptions. There are millions of family businesses that may not object not just to the ACA but renew objections to discrimination laws that force such businesses to serve same-sex weddings or engage in other activities that violate their religious beliefs. This is much like Heller and the recognition of individual gun rights. We are still working out the details on how far that goes years after the decision.
This is a major blow to the Administration which in the last ten days have been found to have violated the fourth amendment and privacy and then found to be in violation of the separation of powers and now found in violation of the first amendment and religious freedom.
How about obese people, it’s fun to eat, should we not cover gastric bypass surgery, which has been proven to reverse all the co morbidities related to obesity and would cost far more money in the long run?
Annie – ever had a pap smear? That is what a prostate exam is about. There is no way a pap smear and birth control are the same.
Annie:
If men could conceive, we’d have temples to contraception.
Steve H. wrote “The conservatives on this blog just want government to stop telling us want to do, to think, and to believe. The liberals want to control our actions, thoughts and belief system.”
What a crock! Both want to control us; they just have different ways of doing it. Here’s one relevant example. Conservatives used to think it was freedom to allow insurance companies to deny coverage. Obamacare has its problems, but that relic of the Dark Ages is gone. And here why it matters. Usually one can negotiate with drive-by hospitals for the charges and receive approximately the same price one would receive via insurance. Doctors will sometimes, but certainly not usually, negotiate less than full retail price. Pharmacies will not negotiate, with the full retail price of a generic prescription easily exceeding ten times the usual insurance price. I know all this from personal experience.
Jim 22:
Raised one but once I could think for myself I concluded that snakes can’t talk, bread doesn’t change mysteriously in human tissue, and people can’t fly without technology. Then I got a look at that army of ordained rapists unleashed on little kids and had to wonder just what I was doing in a building with all these sheep who support this type of activity/ideas — implicitly or overtly. Call it a crisis of faith or a pang of conscience but either way I’m like Ronald Reagan with the Dems — the institution left me.
Smoking is fun to smokers, should we not cover their preventative lung exams, or their emphysema meds?
So birth control for the purpose of preventing an unwanted pregnancy and possible abortion shouldn’t be covered, but prostate exams should. The hypocrisy is sickening.
Steve, Well put.
Jim, that’s possible. Someone would have to do a cost benefit analysis of how much money is spent by the government fixing hockey injuries and compare it to the price of providing free gear. Now I haven’t seen that study yet so i don’t know; id guess probably not. Now I do know though some of my property taxes is paying for some kid’s football gear at the local high school…just the cost of living in society; i don’t get outraged about it even though I can’t stand football. Somebody else might enjoy it afterall.
Now how about this scenario…lets say you injured your leg playing hockey and can’t afford treatment. Do you get coverage even though the hockey playing was fun and optional? Do we not cover contraception because the sex might be fun and optional (other uses of birth control aside)?
Mespo, Just curious, are you or were you Catholic?
Annie, No, married couples should have as much or as little sex as they want. They should just pay for their own contraception when they due. This isn’t as hard as you are all making it.
Saucy, I’m not going to determine it for the women, their Dr. will like he/she does already. Pretty simple huh?
Steve H:
No hatred there Stevie, just calling the delusion riders out for what they are. You can believe any damn fool thing you want to believe just don’t ask me or mine to pay for it, subsidize it, or kneel there with you. Don’t think the Roman Catholic Church is misogynistic? Tell that to all those Roman Catholic female priests you see.
Mark:
“Next up, can the Court require attorneys to take communion before pleading before the Supremes?”
*********************
No, we just crawl on our hands and knees up to the building and wait for three days in a snowstorm like Henry IV did to the Pope.
Karen s:
Maybe you could just cut out the middleman send us all your Republican/Ayn Rand/Rand Paul talking points then we could be edified and light our fireplaces with them.
Jim22 wrote “I stated I’m for covering that since it for a medical reason. What was Flukes medical reason?”
How are you going to determine if the woman is asking for the pill for birth control, other purposes, or both? I thought you glibertarians / klanarchists opposed government intervention.
OK, I started a rant but I’m not finished….
The conservatives on this blog just want government to stop telling us want to do, to think, and to believe. The liberals want to control our actions, thoughts and belief system.
I don’t like the liberal philosophy of control over everything, but I can respect them because they are entitled to their opinion, no matter how flawed I think it is.
What is deeply troubling, is the preponderance of religious hatred (see most of the last half of this blog), and of personal attacks (see: “misogynistic agenda”) being spewed by the liberals (see anything by Mespo).
The argument about the role of government continues, but when the left resorts to hate speech, personal attacks, and wild speculation, I can see who is losing the argument.
Jim, “recreational activities”. How about those married couples Jim? Should women cut off their husband’s access to the marital bed?
John – “Jim, I guess I’d respond to that by saying there is a public benefit to providing birth control; Would you rather pay for peoples prenatal care when they have a pregnancy they cant afford? Hey, lets just we pretend this is a perfect world and humans don’t have sex unless they want kids.”
Is there not a public benefit for providing me with my hockey gear? I’m sure to get a pretty serious set of injuries with out it resulting in medical bills. Again, why should we pay for peoples recreational choices? We shouldn’t.
John, Biking is fun, but I never expect others to pay for my helmet.