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 – “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?”
This is why govt. run non-free market insurance doesn’t make sense. Why should I pay for anyone’s brought on risks. You smoke? Pay more. Out of shape? Pay more. Play high risk sports? Pay more. It’s no different than someone who likes to drive fast paying higher insurance due to tickets. The basic problem is once you ask someone else to pay for something, you open the door for them to have a say in your life.
“Religion poisons everything.” Christopher Hitchens (RIP, my friend)
This is a wrong ruling that will further theocratize the country that used to be America. The SCOTUS has earned their place in infamy. I’m so angry and disgusted with conservatives I can hardly speak.
“Can you imagine the challenges to come. Muslim corporations requiring women employees to wear burkas and pray five times a day. Catholic ones requiring their employees to attend church. And on and on it goes.”
It is hard for me to reconcile the position of some supporters of the decision. On the one hand they seem thrilled that the decision is a blow for religious freedom. On the other they seem to chide liberals as alarmist because the decision is limited to a single firm and only restricts access to a few methods of birth control.
I don’t think the decision can be both. If is limited in the firms and insurance services that are affected then how can it be a great step forward for religious freedom.
I can’t comment with knowledge about the decision, but it is hard to imagine the reasoning of the decision would not apply to any other closely held firm. NPR tells us that 9 out of 10 US firms are closely held, and while most are small some are huge. And WAPO has an article along the same lines that says studies suggest closely held firms might employ slightly over 50% of US workers.
It seems to me this decision has the potential to bring about a major change in the working conditions of most US workers.
Is there a reasonable way the court can limit the number of firms that fall under the decision?
And how many owners of closely held corporations will decide to allow their religious views to shape corporate policy?
mespo,
Like this?
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/statuses/483622592381612034
Karen,
I gave you the wrong date. I was writing on my iPhone and not around my notes. The correct year in question to being ‘tossed out’ was ’09.
So Paul,
Do the math… middle aged with a baby face, dressed in clean clothes and oh, a manicure from the week before and no dirty swollen fingers… just not clean shaven (who could be like that). The only thing that made me look ‘junky’ were my teary eyes begging for relief. I did do a dumb thing tho, mostly because of that and of desperation was to take someone else’s MS pills in hope to at least buy me a few hours respite. No harm to me, except relaxation for a while and so I slept some.
Go ahead and ignore my comment you Libs on here. Those IUDs hurt the Women and kill the babies. I had personal Familial interaction with it. You want to be right so bad that it is ridiculous. And a morning after pill for closely held corporations only is nothing like what you are screeching about. It’s religious freedom. You got your freaking gay rights. Let the Conservatives have their Religious Rights. In their businesses that THEY own, THEY should have the right to follow a belief that morning after and IUD is murderous to a baby and unhealthy to a Mother, because it IS. Face reality.
Paul C. Schulte
I’m halfway there… Living on a prayer (now)
I fell in love for the first time that year… 1986.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk
? 50
Have any of you ever had one of those intrauterine devices or known anyone that had one? My Mom had one and carried a dead baby for a month in the 60s and I had one and was told it kept pregnancy away by a small local infection. I am serious as a heart attack here. I simply don’t trust anything to do with birth control the Doctors come up with personally. I used good old fashioned methods after 3 DNCs myself.
Karen S:
“And it’s hated by a vast majority of people, who either want it repealed outright or fundamentally changed.”
****************************
Is lying part of your conservative repertoire? Hated? The most recent CNN poll shows exactly opposite of what you wrote. And if you factor out those folks who know next to nothing about the plan and who disapprove of it, you reach the conclusion that the more you know the more you like it.
“According to the poll, 61% want Congress to leave the Affordable Care Act alone (12%) or make some changes to the law in an attempt to make it work better (49%).
Thirty-eight percent of those questioned say the law should be repealed and replaced with a completely different system (18%) or say the measure should be repealed, with Americans going back to the system in place before the law was implemented (20%).”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/11/cnn-poll-should-obamacare-be-kept-or-repealed/
Keep talking Karen you prove my points about conservatives and the so-called religious with every syllable.
mespo – if you phrase it as the Affordable Care Act, it gets higher marks. If you phrase it as Obamacare it sinks like a rock.
Mike A:
A referee for religion is exactly what they are or as I say an ecclesiastical court. Can you imagine the challenges to come. Muslim corporations requiring women employees to wear burkas and pray five times a day. Catholic ones requiring their employees to attend church. And on and on it goes. Is Alito just dense or does he really think this is the way a pluralistic society functions best?
mespo –
This is right off the factsheet for Thinkprogress and HuffPo. This is a very silly argument.
Karen S:
“You sound quite hateful and intolerant towards all the major faiths.”
***************
Grow up, Karen. No one gets respect for fantastic beliefs just because the “major faiths” hold them. If you want to spew nonsense don’t expect me to pat you on the head and tell you it’s ok. You’re in the big leagues and your victimhood defense — learned from your other conservative brethren that infect the blog — doesn’t cut it with anyone with a mind. We have a right to have our government free from the delusion and silly sentimentality of the religious crazies out there who always feel put upon because not everyone accepts their brand of nonsense. The government is not in the business of protecting everybody’s religious sentiments nor should it be. It’s what a journalism professor once told me a good journalist is — GDI. That’s God Damn Independent and showing neither malice or favor to anyone or anything. Just tell the facts and let the people decide. The people did decide about Obamacare via their representatives and a gang of 5 religious and political ideologues just rewrote a poorly thought out federal law to discriminate against women on what else religious grounds. Nothing original there, it’s a historical habit.Never mind the opposition to birth control is purely religion based with nary a wit of science to support it. And never mind that the religious institutions enjoy most every benefit the country can bestow including tax free income, no control over the society corrupting foolishness they promulgate, or even responsibility for the heinous crimes they commit on their own members. And never mind that ascribing religious rights to a legal fiction would boggle the mind of most every legal scholar since Hammurabi. Nope we must speak in hushed tones whenever the religious claim victimhood and then scurry off to do their bidding. If the SCOTUS majority would have sat around trying to come up with a plan to Balkanize this country along religious lines they couldn’t have done a better job. Like the factions duking it out in Syria? Well at this rate it’s coming to a church near you.
mespo – your journalism teacher would be greatly disappointed in today’s reporter since over 90% contributed to either the Democratic party or Democratic candidates.
You are not neutral on the subject of religion. You are anti-religion, very anti. You would be better served to take a truly neutral path on this subject. .
More on male suicide from an essay by Todd McMullen, circa 1980 (from my dad’s hard drive), which excerpt I’m posting now to displace the myth that there is a war on women. You can’t read this stuff today because, well, how else do you keep a lie alive, much less any publisher left to print it now? I’ve never understood men’s silence on these stats yet their obsessive-compulsive support for everything female. The only thing that makes sense is their belief it keeps them out of the dog house.
Excerpt:
“March 16, 1981 there were 355 female patients at Metropolitan State Mental Hospital. The same day there were 508 male patients, contrary to the widely held belief such places are full of crazy women. By contrast, between 9 and 5 today, I. Magnin’s, or Sak’s, or Bullock’s was full of ‘crazy’ women shopping for a new remote-control microwave oven which will no doubt be paid for by a hard, hard, hardworking remote-control husband. For now, let’s color his personality ‘Made in USA.’ During 1980, males accounted for 64% of all new mental patient admissions nationwide, almost 2 to 1 over the weaker sex. That ratio was 52% in 1960, 56% in 1970 and the more bizarre, berserk, and violent, the more male. In short, the incidence of male insanity is rising. Paranoia, the dangerous state of mind wherein “the world is out to get me,” is almost always male. The criminally insane are totally male. Males also account for 97% of all drunk-driving convictions. They, of course, were born that way relative to the females. Or could it be there is another force, perhaps, ‘the world,’ or society, or culture at work here? Considering men are much better off relative to women in all other industrial nations of the world, the society theory becomes a very reasonable idea.
“One example is the matter of all those ‘bums’ on welfare, except the American variety wears shirts. In 1978, 92% of all adults receiving some form of cash public assistance were females. Curious, isn’t it, a nation with welfare rolls full of females and prisons full of males! How clever. Someone might even lay claim to a direct relationship between the two. Basically, under The American Way, a destitute person must have custody of children, be pregnant, or get pregnant in order to qualify for the $42 Billion Federal Aid To Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Guess which destitute sex that leaves out? If a family is defined as a father and mother with children, then only 8% of the 3.2 million adult recipients in 1978 were families. The remaining 92% were females, welfare mommas, by the millions. Besides, it’s ‘normal’ since many welfare mommas’ mommas’ momma started the whole thing with some help from society, usually as a solution to personal problems, largely poverty. Ever heard of a welfare king? During 1977, there were 1,072,136 never-married welfare mothers collecting AFDC, or 33.8% of the total. So much for the theory of the big bad man abandoning his wife and kids. During 1981, 600,000 children in New York City qualified their parent(s) for welfare benefits, 87% of whom were female. So what if males are virtually excluded from public assistance? Men, especially The Great American Male, can always fend for themselves as muggers, murderers, burglars, and stick-up artists. Just because raiding the refrigerator is the largest single class of rip-off in residential burglaries doesn’t mean a thing. Then again, treat men like animals and they’ll act like animals, or criminals, or whatever, and treat women like over-privileged parasites upon a pedestal, and they’ll act like it, does have a certain ring of truth to it. Ah, the Truth. But then, if guys got welfare, who’d join the Army and die for The American Way? The women? Hard to understand why paranoia is a male mental illness, isn’t it? Fact is, the culture called, ‘America’ is out to get its males.”
I suppose that my views on this issue are clear from several columns I have posted over the last two years. I have only had time to skim the decision and cannot fairly address it now, but the bits I have read are a jurisprudential mess. I believe that the Supreme Court has now put itself in the position of becoming a religious referee. Is there a Most Favored Religion Clause in the Constitution? Despite the protestations to the contrary of Justice Alito, this decision has very broad, and very disturbing, implications.
Bree – please read the package insert for the contraceptives in question. They state that one of the ways in which the drug works is to prevent implantation of an embryo. The medical community (mostly) redefined pregnancy as after implantation in, I think, the 70’s. But many people believe that life begins as soon as it has its own DNA that is functioning. And, scientifically, they are correct. It is a personal decision about what someone considers life.
It seems like a ridiculous argument to complain about 16 out of 20 choices, when not too long ago policies covered only a few contraceptives, and women did not feel abused. Meanwhile, general healthcare is getting out of reach of middle class women thanks to Obamacare.
But people keep focusing on the unfairness of it all, having a mere 16 choices to prevent pregnancy, plus you can get free condemns in every state in the union and Alaska (through the mail.) Meanwhile, essential drugs, like some that treat MS, are no longer covered at all. But, hey, we’ve got those 20 birth control choices. So . . . great . . .
Samantha:
“The decision has nothing whatsoever to do with “all” contrceptives, so there is no risk of pregnancy at all, as you fear. Nonetheless, when the ACA was proposed, there was the risk of more insurance premium than women can afford. Did that affordability concern rise to the same level of concern you have now for the risk of women having more children than they can afford?”
EXACTLY! Thank you! How are middle class women supposed to afford doubled premiums, 1100% increases in deductibles, 75% of doctors won’t accept their plans so they still have to pay out of pocket to see a doctor, which won’t count towards those sky high deductibles, and then most medications are not covered on formulary. And yet Democrats declare that this is HELPING them!
SERIOUSLY! 16 out of 20 contraceptives are covered, and THAT’S what people think is a war on women??? Not essentially putting health care out of the reach of middle class women??? That’s really super that she has such an embarrassment of riches in choice of contraception. Woo hoo. But how about that MS medication that will keep her out of a wheelchair and extend her life?
And here’s another front to the war on women. Contraceptives were just made “free” to all women (while increasing their premiums to pay for it and all the other freebies, hoping they’d be too clueless to notice their net loss). Now, what do you think that will do to condemn use? Men will now know with certainty that women have access to free birth control. How much pressure will they exert on their partners to avoid wearing a condemn? What will be the net increase in STDs, including HIV infection, among women? Condomns have no side effects besides allergies to latex, spermicide, or other materials. They help to protect against deadly STDs. Hormonal birth control pills carry a risk for stroke, among other side effects. With contraceptives now “free”, how many smokers will now take the pill that wouldn’t have before, who are cautioned against taking hormonal birth control because of a high risk of stroke?
mespo:
“Ah, and which fantasy religion holds that tenet. The fundies say all the Bible is the unerring word of God. Catholics say the Old Testament was fulfilled by the New Testament, and that hodgepodge of Protestant sects either accept the Old Testament as guidance or follow it lock, stock and barrel. Of course, the Jews believe it’s the only one worth reading. Muslims have their own fairy tale which plagiarizes it, and the Far East crowd has no idea why the Hell we care about this First Century playbook. And lastly, the disingenuous discount it when they want to and hold it up as a divine guide when it suits them. Where should I put you?”
You sound quite hateful and intolerant towards all the major faiths.
And yet, our Founding Fathers created a country where you don’t get to decide how or if people practice a religion. The pilgrims settled here to escape religious persecution, and practice their own forms of Christianity. It is not up to you how Christians or Jews practice their faith. From a series of comments, you seem to be saying that all Christians are hypocrites unless they follow the Old Testament, and burn a bull in sacrifice and stone people. You have every right to think that, but I’m puzzled as to what you want? Do you want people burning sacrifices, because that will really cause some air pollution, and some problems with the neighbors.
It is not up to you how people worship God, or if they worship at all. People have the right to freedom OF religion (which is not the same as freedom FROM religion). It’s one of our most basic rights.
In our quest for tolerance, we have become a less tolerant nation. People have the right to practice their faith, even when they become a business owner.
Now let’s say, for example, that a business owner operates in one of the states where Obamacare covers abortions. (I believe there are 24 of them, at last count.) They have rules in place that are supposed to prevent federal funds being used for abortion, by using premiums for those plans to cover abortion services. But everyone on that plan, and sometimes that’s the only one offered, has an “abortion premium” added to all plans. So taxpayers do pay for abortion in that way. Now, if you oppose abortion, say, on religious grounds, do you have the right to object to being forced to provide health insurance to your employees that pays for abortions? There are some states that cover abortions quite late.
Now, in the good old days, you had a choice as to what plan, if any, you wanted to offer your employees. If you wanted to attract good talent, you put together a good benefits package. And then you chose an employer health plan that met your needs. Market driven. Consumers had a choice. But now, there are no more choices. And if you want to get out of providing health insurance at all, and just pay your employees more so they can buy insurance themselves, you’ll get a fine. That is what happens when the government becomes more and more intrusive, and forgets its most basic role is to protect our borders, provide infrastructure such as roads, and bridges, etc. Basic functions. Not cradle to grave interference.
The goal should have been to provide a humane solution to the problem of improving health care for the poor. But Obamacare went WAY beyond that. And it’s hated by a vast majority of people, who either want it repealed outright or fundamentally changed. And the employer mandate hasn’t even hit yet. I’ve read large sections of the law. What’s fundamentally wrong with it cannot be changed or the whole system crumbles.
lebovits wrote: “… without the use of contraceptives women are likely to be at risk of having more children than they can afford…”
The decision has nothing whatsoever to do with “all” contrceptives, so there is no risk of pregnancy at all, as you fear. Nonetheless, when the ACA was proposed, there was the risk of more insurance premium than women can afford. Did that affordability concern rise to the same level of concern you have now for the risk of women having more children than they can afford?
The 4 dissenting justices committed judicial malpractice.
The 4 dissenting justices must be prosecuted for treason and insurrection.
The duty of the SCOTUS is not that of the executive or legislative branch, it is to support and uphold the literal words of the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The SCOTUS shall not nullify the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights with impunity.
If I worked for a corporation for twenty years or so and was of an age where it is difficult to get another employer to hire an old fart and then another corporation bought out my corporation and the new one is Hobby Lobby, then I am screwed. Especially if I like to screw and employ birth control methods. What would be the result in this case if Hobby Lobby decided they favored pedophilia and only hired Priests to do their various jobs? What if Hobby Lobby went Muslim and required all the women to wear veils? What if Hobby Lobby went Hispanic and decided that only women who spoke Spanish and wore veils and never used birth control could work there? And what if Alito and his kids went to eat there and his kids got a disease because none of the employees were allowed to wear condoms when they went to the cathouse? If they can not wear rubbers I wonder if they can wear rubber gloves when they mix the salads. BarkinDog wonders how you people put those gloves on over your paws.
I agree with this decision have believe companies have the right to limit covered medical benefits to all its employees. Logically this argument can be extended to all corporations. Free Market forces will determine if a corporation is worth working for.