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.
@Jim22
In another thread you called me a socialist. You called me other names as well, but I’m not going to waste my time looking for your insults. In this thread you wrote: “Do you own anything? If you due what a selfish person you are. It must be tough to live with the guilt in your head.” And “lack of argument/intelligence” is not a phrase intended to make friends.
Your comment “All I know is your side lost twice yesterday and it feels good” tells us that you are vindictive. You also continue to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal and this is not remotely true.
You appear to think that you can insult people, but they are not allowed to insult you in return. It doesn’t work that way.
leejcaroll – the doctors group you cite forgot the part of the decision where it says that the government can pay for the stuff, if it wants. That way, the government would directly be in the abortion business.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24694-the-supreme-court-thinks-corporations-are-people-but-women-arent “As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, we’re still in the 19th century when it comes to women’s rights.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled that for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby can discriminate against their female employees by denying them birth control coverage as required under Obamacare as long as those corporations believe that doing so “violates” their religious beliefs.
According to the Court, “closely-held” corporations like Hobby Lobby are protected by a 1993 law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a law that protects people – let me repeat, PEOPLE, as in homo sapiens sapiens – from having “substantial burdens” placed on their religious beliefs.
There are a lot of things to talk about when it comes to the Hobby Lobby case – the fact that Hobby Lobby’s arguments weren’t based in scientific fact, the fact that Hobby Lobby actually invests in companies that make the very same birth control it says goes against its religious beliefs, the fact that it’s more than ready to pay for male birth control procedures like vasectomies, the fact that much of what they sell comes from China, the home of forced abortions – you name it.
All of these things are important and show just how insane and fundamentally hypocritical the Court’s decision really was.
But in the end, the most damning thing of all about today’s ruling is that it shows that one branch of our government, the Supreme Court, believes that the “rights” of non-breathing, definitely-not-alive corporations trump the rights of the 51 percent of the population which has a uterus.
If you thought that American society had moved beyond the idea that women were property or even just second-class citizens, then think again.
The Hobby Lobby decision is just more proof that while women can now vote, the most powerful people in our country are still stuck in the 19th century. They just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that women are – you know – real people who deserve the same rights as men.
SWM – Ted Kennedy was the mover and shaker behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and passed with bipartisan support.
“Ted Kennedy was the mover and shaker behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and passed with bipartisan support.”
OK, but I will bet the Ted is as surprised as I am that anyone would believe corporate persons require protection of their religious rights. The corporations I know hardly ever go to church and I have never heard one pray. Maybe the courts was confused and thought corporate persons needed more protection for preying.
bfm – the irony of this is delicious. Ted Kennedy’s work is used against Ted Kennedy’s work.
Leej, that’s why all those Tea People waved their “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” signs. People who have Medicare LIKE it.
Annie – when Medicare is the only devil you have available you do not want it made worse. Part of the original Obamacare plan was to help pay for Obamacare by cutting payments to Medicare doctors. This required the doc fix bill to pay them at current rates.
Sauce, All you name calling shows your lack of argument/intelligence. All I know is your side lost twice yesterday and it feels good. Your hatred for personal freedoms must make you a very dark person.
http://www.physiciansnews.com/2014/06/30/doctor-group-says-supreme-courts-birth-control-decision-has-the-potential-to-harm-us-all/
Doctor Group Says Supreme Court’s Birth Control Decision “Has The Potential To Harm Us All”
But hey these are just doctors as opposed to lawyers and politicians.
leejcaroll – the doctors you are so supportive are doctors with an agenda.
“The government can’t run anything, can’t be trusted to protect our rights.”
From what I have heard the VA situation arises out of the bonuses from reduced wait times,
I have been on medicare and SSD for over 30 years. I have never had a payment missed or a payment not paid by medicare to the hospital, doctors.
It runs SS and medicare, as 2 examples, in a fine manner
leejcaroll wrote “This is one of the lies of the right. These prices and policies are set by the insurance companies, not the ACA.”
True.
Remember when righties declared that all we needed to do was import drugs from Canada? It was before Saint Sarah blathered on about death panels. My, how things have changed.
We only have two major grocery chains in our area. The pharmacist in one told me that their corporate policy is to only stock Indian-made generic drugs (it is not possible to obtain any other); and most generic OTC drugs and products are made in India and China. The pharmacist in the other told me that their corporate policy is that they can order any generic drug which meets a price point, which often, but not always, results in Indian-made drugs. My mail-in prescription plan only offers Indian-made generic drugs if one is available and that is almost always the case. Usually the Indian manufacturer is Dr. Reddy’s.
In the above, brand names are always available at a much higher price, but pharmaceutical companies have not realized that some people prefer generic drugs made in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Israel. or another civilized country.
P.S. Next time you fill a generic prescription, especially for pills, look for “MFG” and research the abbreviation after it on the Internet.
P.P.S. Did you know that 80% of drug component come from India and China?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/opinion/dingell-drug-oversight/index.html
Insurance has always paid for the sick from the premiums paid by the well. I have had probably close to a million in med expenses from about 1979 – 1981, The well paid for that, as did I from my BC?BS premiums. Now that I get very little medical care I pay for the sick with my premiums. It has always been this way.
Jim you sound like you would be in favor of genetic testing so we can know who is at risk for huntingdon’s breast cancer etc and price their policies accordingly.
My parents were first cousins. Should I have been penalized for potential medical risks associated with that?
(As it turns out I have a birth defect that is rare but not associated with internecine relationships.)
My father and grandfather died of ALS. Increases my chances but blood test only shows if have the gene that I still have only 50% of developing ALS Should I lose my right to chose not to have that test?
Jim22 wrote “If you due what a selfish person you are. It must be tough to live with the guilt in your head”
It must be tough to live with the lack of intelligence in yours.
bigfatmike, I agree with you. I will explain my opposition from a legal entity point of view.
Corporations were invented to separate owners from their business to add limited liability. Lawyers even have a phrase for the attempt to make owners and corporate officers responsible for their actions: “piecing the corporate veil.”
But now SCOTUS wants corporations to have their cake and eat it too. SCOTUS wants corporation owners to be able to micromanage employees. SCOTUS used the term “closely-held corporation,” but that’s really an oxymoron.
The decision is flawed. SCOTUS should have found that, if owners want control like a sole proprietorship, they need to move to that form of ownership.
saucy – my family was part of a closely-held corporation so I know that it is not an oxymoron. You can try to be cute with your denial, but they do exist and they usually start as small business.
Saucy, Do you own anything? If you due what a selfish person you are. It must be tough to live with the guilt in your head.
I thought I read on this blog someone pointing out some religions getting a pass on ACA. My bad if not true.
As for the knocking on the door thing, I agree Nick. I grew up near Watchtower Farms and we had plenty of visits. I used to have fun with the Mormons when I lived out in CA for a bit. Although I am somewhat religious, I am in no was a literal interpreter.
Jim22 – if those people were not out knocking on doors, think of the exercise they would be missing.
Jim22 wrote “This is why govt. run non-free market insurance doesn’t make sense”
Take two people, same age, who buy health insurance at age 20. Both are healthy at the time and don’t smoke. But the first develops cancer at age 40, while the second does not. Guess what, the second subsidizes the first for his cancer. There’s no getting around it, regardless of whether it is private or government insurance.
Annie’s right, but explained it in different terms. It is not possible to take all risk factors and separate them out so that each person only pays for his expected health problems. There will always be subsidies. It’s called insurance for good reasons. Your selfishness is obsessive, like all glibertarians / klanarchists.
And there is an additional problem. You appear to be saying that insurance should really be a pay-in-advance scheme, where people pay amounts directly proportional to their future health problems. We’ll soon be at a point where we can fairly accurately predict a person’s health problems.
So imagine this scenario. You are 21-years-old and graduating college. You accept a job offer after college. As a mandatory condition of employment, blood is taken to predict your future health problems. They tell you that you will develop treatable, but very expensive, brain cancer and that you will soon show the symptoms for MS. Your health insurance premiums are $3000 per month, less than your starting salary.
I’m hoping for ruling that Jehovah’s are not allowed to knock on doors!
Jim, The Court has ruled religious exemptions like blood transfusions ARE NOT INCLUDED like the 4 birth controls in this ruling are. Is that what you meant by “exemptions” for Jehovah’s?
Jim, so when did this exemption occur? Why hasn’t it hit the news?
Really, Jehovah Witness business owners do not have to provide blood transfusions in their employees health insurance plans? First I’ve heard about this.
Annie, I’m pretty sure that Jehovah Witnesses already have an exemption.
How can it be a victory for religious corporations when the decision only concerns itself with reproduction? What about those Christian Scientists or Jehovah Wittnesses? Don’t their beliefs count? Why should they have to go against their religious beliefs to provide health care and blood transfusions? Shouldn’t they get a religious exemption too? Why did the Supreme Court give special rights to only Catholics and evangelicals?