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.
This is a fascinating thread to read. Some people hate religion. There are some w/ a reasoned opposition to this ruling. Even some hybrids. They are an interesting mix to read.
Mark Gisleson wrote “If your company is taken over by Mormons, will you have to give up alcohol and cigarettes to keep your job?”
Someone I know used to work at Home Depot. Employees were told that they could not smoke on company property even if they were in their car with windows closed on the parking lot. It was a firing offense.
Can anyone find my lost post?
BFM: How does Obamacare slow the growth of health care when my premiums doubled and my deductibles increased by 1100%. And premiums doubled ON AVERAGE.
Growth in health care spending prior to 2008 was running at over 6%per year. Since 2008 growth in health care spending is just over 3% per year. A portion of that decline in the growth rate is attributed to ACA. And ACA is just beginning to have an impact of health care costs.
Some people and families have experienced large increase in health care premiums at the inception of ACA. That is, in part, due to the requirement that insurance cover those who would have been cancelled in the past. Rate increases for 2015 are expected to be much lower.
Again, it is not possible to live in the past. We will necessarily change the way we deliver health care. The only question is whether we manage that change with something like ACA, or better, or whether we let the system collapse. You don’t like the health care system now? Try the next few decades without ACA or something similar. Unless you like living in economic distopia, you will find life with ACA, or something similar, much better.
To summarize, the heath care system prior to ACA was producing increases in health care cost at about twice the rate in growth in the general economy. That was no fluke. It produced those results for decades. Such increases are unsustainable. If we were to try to continue, eventually all productivity would be devoted to health care – which is impossible unless you don’t care about shelter, clothing or something to eat.
We are going to change. The only question is to what? ACA is a good start, in my opinion, because of the programs that systematically try to identify cost effective techniques and bring them to the attention of all practitioners. Single payer might have practical advantages, but in this country political liabilities.
I have never stated that off-label use of any drug should not be allowed.
I’ve said it’s a spurious argument to claim that birth control pills are mainly “medicine” instead of family planning, regardless of the occasional off-label use that doctors decide to employ at their own risk.
Call it what it is – birth control that is also used for other things occasionally because of the side effects.
Max – YES I agree that Viagra and other ED drugs should not be covered for free, with no deductible. It was annoying that Japan approved Viagra before they approved birth control pills.
Max – again the use of birth control bills to provide estrogen to transgender people is off-label. And there are many estrogen supplements.
Karen S
Off label use…
… Then you agree, Viagra and other ED drugs should also NOT be covered.
Max-1 – when you look at the label you will see that ED is the condition it is prescribed for. ED is NOT off-label for Viagra.
This decision paves the way for ALL CORPORATIONS to declare a religious affiliation. Hobby Lobby is glad to invest and PROFIT in “The Morning After Pill” but now they are liberated from any EXPENSES involved with it. Gee, it looks like there is no down-side to declaring a religious affiliation.
Imagine a world no so far in the future where virtually all corporations have declared a religious affiliation, because not doing so is a defacto declaration of “Atheist Affiliation” and as we should all know, atheists are the most hated group in America. Just Google “atheist most hated” to get the facts.
Mark my words, two years from today these corporations will number in the millions.
God, the misinformation going on about Hobby Lobby is astounding. Hobby Lobby, along with lots of other firms have their pension funds in lots of stocks. Several of the stocks are drug companies. One is a drug company who, among lot of other products, makes birth control products. Now, if Hobby Lobby was part-owner of an abortion mill, I could see the hypocrisy, but the drug association is a nothing.l
Max:
Let me explain off-label use, since many won’t be familiar with that term.
Yes, it is true that many drugs that failed their original Investigational New Drug filing with the FDA are sometimes successfully brought through marketing their side effects. Viagra is a prime example. But the end result is that it’s labelled use is for ED, regardless of what its original protocol was.
An “off label use” is when doctors prescribe a drug for something other than what it went through the FDA for. Many drugs have beneficial off-label uses, but we have to be careful, because those uses were not tested by the FDA.
Here is a quick blurb explaining the difference between off-label use (at a doctor’s discretion and risk) and investigational use of already marketed drugs (where drugs are put in a clinical trial for different uses than labelled).
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm126486.htm
Annie
Prostate exams… good one.
“What about the shipload full of people who had no health insurance? Oh yeah, screw ‘em, they didn’t matter, right? OK, get rid of Obamacare, move on to Single Payer, which we should’ve done all along.”
As a nation we pay about twice per capita for health care than any other industrialized nation, well over $8,000 per person per year. But our results are mixed. By many measures we get worse results, in some cases far worse results than other nations. For example, We are pretty good at developing new technology but not so good at longevity and pretty bad at infant mortality.
For about two decades this country has seen health care costs increasing at rates faster than growth in GDP. That is unsustainable. Recently, growth in health care costs have started to decline. In fact the growth in health care cost are now the lowest in 50 years. That does not necessarily mean that health care cost are going down, only that they are not going up as fast. But that is a good thing. We need more of it.
The reasons for that slowing in the growth in health care cost are controversial, and likely not completely understood. Some of the slowing is likely due to the weak economy; the slowing did start before ACA. But it appears that ACA, Obamacare, has already had some effect in slowing the growth in health care costs. And ACA is in the early stages of implementation. It has been lost in the conversation, but there are many features in ACA that are designed specifically to identify best, cost efficient, practices and encourage their wide spread use.
There is much that we do not know about the effects of ACA and the future of health care in the US. But one thing is certain. We cannot continue to provide health care as we have in the past. That is not going to work. If health care costs were to increase as fast as they did prior to 2008, within a few decades all productive activity in the US economy would be devoted to health care.
There is no doubt. We will definitely change the way health care is provided in the future. The only question is will we manage that change to assure that everyone receives the quality health care they require.
Single payer is not the only possible answer. But it is an answer that works well in many countries, and in many respects out performs the US health care system. It would see that exceptional Americans could figure out how to equal the rest of the industrialized nations on performance and price in health care.
john
Other than making them prove their Lord is real and can be subpoenaed…
… A deeply held Religious belief is usually found in one’s mind, not Court.
Jim, I don’t want to have to pay for your prostate exams. Why should I have to?
Annie – you should know this, but a prostate exam is a regular part of a man’s yearly checkup.
There is something about my reply to mespo that is verboten… I have no clue.
Trashed thrice now…
oops treat
Mespo,
I’m trying to understand how a NOT FOR PROFIT, TAX EXEMPT Religious organization is like a FOR PROFIT TAX PAYING public enterprize…
Max-1, I restored your comment at 2:15.
Karen,
I know many a trans woman out there that would disagree with your take on bc. pills… just saying.
p.s. they don’t use ’em to not get preggers.
Karen, Birth control pills also treats PCOS and other hormone related disorders.
Karen,
So Viagra, advertised as a ED pill, is false advertising since it was originally meant for use as a blood agent for patients with cardiac issues and NOT ED issues. The ED issues are a byproduct and therefor can and must be dismissed… like hormone pills that treat a woman’s menstrual cycle can also be used for other courses in medicine, however because that is not the main purpose, its use can be dismissed as viable?