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.
Annie:
Very nice.
Steve, I just don’t buy this view of liberals are out to restrict your rights. In my years on this earth, ive noticed that liberals want to give you more rights and not make you beholden to someones else’s system of morals.
I’m a liberal and I believe that a person’s rights are limited when they start interfering with another persons rights; probably the same thing you believe. You want to smoke pot, fine go for it. You want to marry a dude good for you. You want to spend untold billions manipulating elections, well I got a problem with that because I’d argue that that starts to undermine an underfunded persons right to engage in the political system. My take on the conservatives I’ve seen in power is that they are all for corporate freedoms, but not yours or mine. They don’t really care about the rights of an average person…you have to have money to be worthy of their consideration. The conservative hate for the EPA is another example…restricting corporate freedom to poison people as part of their business model; that’s a damn good thing for entire communities even though it may be bad news for some rich, well connected coal plant operator.
In this case, society has determined that employers provide health care to the employees it chooses to hire. But now these employers want to restrict what kind of health care a person can get because they have some kind of moral objection. Do the math, there are a lot more employees than employers so who’s rights are getting restricted by this.
Steve H:
Come on Steve, a guy with a pipeline to the Creator of the Universe and his black-robed minions can do better than than that. I’ll give you a hint, it’s Phelps v. Archer. Archer is 2-0 with a 0.60 ERA in two career starts at Yankee Stadium.Phelps had won back-to-back starts before the Blue Jays tagged him for eight hits and six runs in five innings during his last outing,
That’s a big enough hint.
Thank you Mespo, they are Hungarian needlework. My roots are deeply Hungarian, but I’ve blossomed on American shores.
Mespo. Read two of three. Nobody reads the car manual.
Annie:
Do all conservatives “run-tell-teacher” when they feel their “brilliance” isn’t being appreciated?
Mespo: Cute. Yankees and Rays will play baseball. One team will win. The other will lose. Everybody knows that. Predictable, consistent, and reliable. Just like some bloggers. In baseball, the only unknown is the final score. With some bloggers, the only unknown is which hate will spew in each blog.
Annie:
I do like those flowers in that gravatar.
Steve H. once again expressing outrage over the fact that the Turley blog isn’t a right wing echo chamber…yet.
Steve H:
“Rather than letting any emotion-driven, hate-mongering bully join, you should require them to pass a test about the Constitution. I’d bet that more than half of the bloggers only know about the Constitution from they hear from the NY Times and Jon Stewart.”
***************************
I bet you never read the entire Constitution of the United States or the Bible or even your entire driver’s manual for your car. Be honest now.
Mr Turley, I have a suggestion to improve this blog. Rather than letting any emotion-driven, hate-mongering bully join, you should require them to pass a test about the Constitution. I’d bet that more than half of the bloggers only know about the Constitution from they hear from the NY Times and Jon Stewart.
Perhaps not. I should be grateful that those who don’t know or respect the Constitution are spending their day ranting emotionally on this blog. If they were active participants in government, we’d be far worse off.
Jim, overeating is not a necessity. Overeating causes obesity. Obesity causes many metabolic and musculoskeletal conditions. Those co morbidities can cause death. Early death and disability is prevented by gastric bypass surgery. should we not cover treatment for obesity?
Steve H:
“We all know that you’re outraged because of your political leanings, not your constitutional values.”
**********************
Care to give us a prediction on tonight Yankees – Rays game. Along with your mind reading talents you should be able to see the future. I’ll stay quiet for you while you concentrate.
Annie, eating is a necessity. Has anyone ever dies from lack of recreational sex?
Dear John.
I will agree that the debate over abortion and gay marriage is founded in the belief system of Christianity. And SCOTUS has determined that those government restrictions on our behavior violate the core principals of the Constitution: the federal government should not regulate behavior. And you liberals rejoiced and celebrated those rulings. I was disappointed but I respect the wisdom of SCOTUS (and Mr Turley).
Now SCOTUS comes back with rulings that overturn more restrictions on our behavior, and you liberals are outraged. We all know that you’re outraged because of your political leanings, not your constitutional values.
Bans on abortion and gay marriage were about government telling people what they could not do, as were limits on campaign contributions; forcing people to pay for services they don’t want are about telling people what they have to do.
Which is a greater threat to freedom? Forbidding behavior or forcing behavior?
Steve H.
Correction @: 4:52: far LESS money in the long run.
” If I need something I don’t ask for others to pay for my actions. You have no argument other than deflection. Why don’t you want to pay for my hockey gear? Are babies a disease? You never answer these questions.”
Some here seem to believe that the sporting equipment analogy is illuminating for the health care debate. I have my doubts. The argument seems to assume that the sole purpose of birth control is to allow sex for pleasure. That simply is not the case.
Reproductive systems for both men and women are related to what are consider essential life functions. By convention we give essential life functions special consideration.
In particular, reproduction, carrying a baby, is not the same as suffering from a disease. But the condition benefits from, and in some cases requires, medical care.
In addition, pregnancy itself entails some risk of damage and death above that of non pregnant condition. Birth control then aids in the selection and timing of medical procedures and the control of health risk associated with pregnancy.
It the sense that birth control allows control of health risk it is little different that other medical products and treatments such as those to control plaque build up and help reduce cardio-vascular disease, supplements for osteoporosis, or antibiotics taken by some before dental exams due to heart and gum conditions – to name just a few.
Control of fertility is a medical issue that cannot be distinguished from many other aspects of health care.
And there is the issue of population control. As some have mentioned elsewhere, regardless of how responsible, there will be some birth control failures and accidents. Of those, some will occur to those who need help caring for their child. When one compares the cost of birth control with the cost of raising a child till the age of 18 the benefits of birth control should be obvious.
Birth control falls well within the range of other medical care traditionally provided by insurance. And there is a social benefit to assuring that every woman who whats birth control has it easily available at low cost.
it is hard to imagine arguing against a policy that benefits women, children, families and society in general.
Jim22 wrote “I’m not going to determine it for the women, their Dr. will like he/she does already”
And all women and girls will realize very quickly that their birth control pills are covered for non-birth-control, so they will arrange it that way. That should have been obvious.
on 1, June 30, 2014 at 4:50 pmmespo727272
Annie:
If men could conceive, we’d have temples to contraception.
***********************
Mespo, yes indeed.
John – “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)?”
John, Yes I do think we cover the hockey injury just like we did before this govt. mess started. The majority of people liked their health insurance before Obamacare. The better idea would have just been to cover the uninsured and leave the rest of us alone. Plus, Planned parent already gives out contraception. It just doesn’t need to be in insurance unless prescribed.
This might open another door though, suppose a Dr. say’s to someone, you need to loose weight by joining a gym etc. Should we pay for that? Is that a health prescription? Is it in our best interest for this person to loose weight?