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.
“Go ahead and ignore my comment you Libs on here. Those IUDs hurt the Women and kill the babies.”
” 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.”
Any medical treatment necessarily involves a decision regarding potential benefits and potential negative consequences. IUD’s may cause miscarriage of preterm birth. However use of IUD’s is not uncommon. ” More than 15 percent of all women worldwide who are married or living with a partner use IUDs as the primary measure of birth control”. I am not aware of any medical authority that does not consider IUDs safe and effective when prescribed for a suitable candidate. Perhaps you would care to tells the medial authorities that agree with your view that IUDs ‘hurt women and kill babies’.
Maybe the insert does claim that IUDs and other methods prevent implantation. But that does not seem to be the best science on the subject. Aaron Carroll writing 063014 in the NYT regarding the Hobby Lobby decision and IUD’s tells us:
“Research does not support the idea that they prevent fertilized eggs to implant. The journal Fertility and Sterility published a study in 1985 that followed three groups of women for 15 months. One group had an IUD, one group had their tubes tied, and one group was trying to get pregnant. They then measured hormone levels to see if fertilization occurred. It did so only in the group trying to get pregnant.
Another study found that a telltale sign of fertilization — a surge of the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin — occurred in only 1 percent of 100 cycles in women using IUDs. This would be consistent with the failure rate of IUDs in general. In other words, IUDs do not appear to work by aborting a fertilized egg.”
He gives a similar discussion regarding the morning after pill and explains that the best science on the subject does not support the view that the method works by preventing implantation. The article is worth looking up.
It is worth noting Carroll is not debating when life begins. He is explaining that the view that these methods of birth control work by preventing implantation is not supported by the science.
BTW, Carroll is Professor of Pediatrics and Assistant Dean for Research Mentoring at Indiana University School of Medicine and an editor in chief for The Incidental Economist which generally covers issues related to health care policy.
And BTW I am not a lib. I do like facts accurate, logic consistent and science objective.
No happypappies, I don’t think your experience with IUDs is funny at all. What I think is humorous is your plaintive wailing about conservatives getting their “Religious Rights” because gays have their “freaking gay rights”. That is some funny stuff, sorry.
Annie – What I think is humorous is your plaintive wailing about conservatives getting their “Religious Rights” because gays have their “freaking gay rights”. That is some funny stuff, sorry. and yet that comment was satirical and meant to be stabbing and passive aggressive like all of yours. Did you like it? It is the first and last time I will comment in such a vein because it is simply not my style but truly you should go back and look at some of your arguments if you don’t think you sound like that at times because you do. I stand by the fact that there should be a separation of powers. That a business should have the right to provide the type of health care they feel comfortable with especially when it interferes with their first amendment rights. Why you can’t see that and the comparison I was drawing with the gays is beyond me. It did get your attention You have a very hard head. You don’t listen. You think you are always right. Whatever………. BTW – why do you think the government should be the one to handle our insurance. What is it with you? I just don’t get that at all. I never will. Do you truly feel safe with your tax money in Washington’s hands?
My god you are the most arrogant woman I have ever heard from. Bar none. I have heard many of your comments. Did you even see what I said the IUD did to my Mother and I yesterday at about 3:30 am and you think that is funny?
Progressives are so ignorant. How can you write like this on Mr. Turley’s blog in good conscience I don’t know. What a Political troll.
Happypappies,
LOL! And you wonder why you’re ignored?
Paul wrote “Hobby Lobby is probably too big to be an LLC.”
There is no size limitation on LLCs per se. There are differences in paperwork, taxes, lifespan, management, and whether a business is considered a “small business” by the SBA.
Jim22 wrote “un-American”
As I wrote, I was not going to go back and look through your posts. That was only a guess. You do use “liberal” and “libs” a lot, even when you know nothing about someone.
“Socialist yes, since what else do you call someone who believes that the govt. should be able to force people and business’ to purchase something they do not want?”
Any government which collects taxes of any kind is socialist by your definition. And since there is not a country on the planet which does not collect taxes, except for anarchies like Somalia and the small tribe here and there, your definition of the word is irrational.
Do you want a military to defend the country? Then you are socialist because the only way to pay for it is via taxes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2013/12/18/there-is-no-shortage-of-doctors-willing-take-medicare-patients/
There is no shortage of doctors willing to take Medicare patients.
Paul wrote “You can try to be cute with your denial, but they do exist and they usually start as small business.”
Corporations were invented to create distance for liability protection; it’s a trade-off, liability protection for lessened control. Corporations were never meant to be used by people who want to micro-manage every last detail. The “closely-held” part is irrelevant. Hobby Lobby should be an LLC.
http://www.sba.gov/content/limited-liability-company-llc
P.S. Research the phrase “piercing the corporate veil.”
saucy – I took business law and am familiar with the phrase “piercing the corporate veil.” Not sure what your point is. Hobby Lobby is probably too big to be an LLC.
Yes Jim, I’ve heard the same thing.
Sauce, you can not find one example of me using “un-American” since I have not used it. Socialist yes, since what else do you call someone who believes that the govt. should be able to force people and business’ to purchase something they do not want? I didn’t think you would find that offensive since self proclaimed socialists that I’ve argued with before usually where it proudly.
Paul and Annie, My wife works for an insurance company and deals with Medicare. I asked her the question about doctors acceptance and she told me, “It is not really hard to find a doctor that accepts Medicare it is hard to find a doctor that accepts Medicaid.”
Jim22 wrote “Funny how you forgot about throwing the first stone”
That was not the first stone. You constantly throw around words like “socialist” and “un-American.” That is as much of an insult as “racist” is from a liberal, yet somehow you do not see that. Yes, I insulted you, but you were the first.
Next time, instead of declaring that someone is a “socialist” because of a stated opinion, why not try and prove your point?
“I’ve never seen a corporation vote, but yet they still get taxed. Isn’t that taxation without representation?”
If they were people, you would have a point.
” The corporations I know hardly ever go to church and I have never heard one pray.”
I’ve never seen a corporation vote, but yet they still get taxed. Isn’t that taxation without representation?
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Hobby_Lobby_Case
The Supreme Court Has a Favorite Religion, and That’s a Big Problem
Sauce, – ” Your selfishness is obsessive, like all glibertarians / klanarchists.”
Funny how you forgot about throwing the first stone. Maybe Ctrl “C” and Ctrl “V” doesn’t work on you own posts?
I have friends on Medicare. Never once have my friends told me they have had difficulty being accepted by any doctor. Not once. Leej, such stories are simply propaganda.
Right Paul because anyone who disagrees with you has an “agenda” which you don’t.
I am on medicare and this medicare patients are having trouble finding doctors is another myth the right keeps spouting like Karen’s majority don’t like ACA. The right, more so then the left, believe if you repeat a lie long enough it will become the truth.
My experience is anecdotal. My doctor has stopped taking either Medicare or Medicaid patients. He will continue with the patients he has, but will not add new ones. My friend had to go two cities over to find a doctor who would take his policy.
swarthmoremom wrote “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”
Half correct. SCOTUS believes that the “rights” of non-breathing, definitely-not-alive corporations trump the rights of all humans. We have a group which espouses to believe in the literal Constitution — Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas — creating rights for entities, corporations, which are neither mentioned in that document nor in the Bill of Rights. The Roberts gang is creating law via judicial activism, something which the Fox News crowd previously decried.
Annie – people with Medicare are iffy about it. I am currently on a cadillac plan but have friends on Medicare. It is harder to find doctors who will take it and most have a supplemental plan to cover the gaps.