The Hobby Lobby ruling

                Most of you probably saw my earlier post expressing my disappointment with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Hobby Lobby case.  I want to take a little time here to delve deeper into my disappointment with that ruling.

                For starters a corporation is not an individual that holds religious beliefs.  Yes, I’ve read the opinions and I know how Justice Alito is invoking the Dictionary Act to say otherwise, but I have to disagree.  Corporations don’t attend church.  Their owners might, their employees might, but the corporation does not attend church.  The corporation does not sign the attendance pad; it is not listed on the membership rolls of the local church.

                Second, check out Part II of Justice Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion.  It seems that a big part of the argument here surrounds the Free Exercise clause.  In an earlier case, the Court held that an employer could deny unemployment benefits to two employees who were fired after participating in a religious ceremony that involved activities deemed illegal by the state (consuming peyote).  In that case the court ruled that Oregon’s law against consuming peyote was not aimed at curtailing freedom of religion.  It did have an incidental effect on certain aspects of a religious ceremony, but it’s purpose was not to limit the free exercise of religion.  Ginsburg argues that the contraception mandate within the ACA fits within this same context.  It is an otherwise valid law whose purpose is the well-being of women.  It’s effect on the exercise of religion is incidental.

                Third, the Court has decided that the religious views of a corporation, as expressed by the owner(s), trumps the freedoms and beliefs of the workers employed there.  That kind of view does tremendous harm to a large number of people.  The Court is elevating the beliefs of a small handful of people over those of the thousands of affected employees.  Again, check Ginsburg’s dissent.  She clearly states, “Accommodations to religious beliefs or observances, the Court has clarified, must not significantly impinge on the interests of third parties.”  So the Court has, in previous rulings, made it clear that the religious beliefs of a few people cannot be accommodated if they seriously affect the interests of third parties.  In the Hobby Lobby case, accommodating the rights of the owner causes serious harm to all the affected third parties.  Now the thousands of female employees who need birth control will need to go through alternate means to obtain such care.

                Fourth, despite the efforts of Justices Alito and Kennedy to narrowly define their ruling as only applying to contraception, they are opening the court up to further challenges along this same line of reasoning.  Say, a Jehovah’s Witness owns a for-profit business.  It is well-known that Jehovah’s Witnesses object to blood transfusions.  Even though the majority opinion seeks to eliminate this possibility, it’s not unreasonable to expect someone to try to launch a case.

                Fifth, why do religious beliefs about contraception get elevated above other religious beliefs.  If the Court is going to grant a corporation an exemption from complying with laws regarding contraceptive coverage, why won’t the Court grant exemptions from covering vaccines or blood-transfusions?  There are religious groups whose views on those subjects are held just as strongly and sincerely as David Green holds his views on contraception.  Check out Kevin Russell’s analysis on scotusblog.com.  It’s not just medical issues that might be challenged; there’s a broad range of possibilities that could be brought before the Court.

                Sixth, why does a corporation get to inject itself into the personal life of women.  There are any number of reasons why a woman would choose to use birth control.  There may be strong medical reasons a woman shouldn’t get pregnant and she should be able to take necessary steps to prevent that from happening.  Decisions regarding one’s personal health should be left to that individual and his/her doctor.

                Seventh, there are fundamental differences, including legal ones, between for-profit companies and non-profit organizations.  UMCOR (United Methodist Committee on Relief) is a non-profit organization sustained by the United Methodist Church.  Its aim is to provide relief in disaster situations within the context of the United Methodist Church.  The people who work for and support UMCOR are connected by their United Methodist faith.  Hobby Lobby sells arts and crafts supplies.  The people who work at Hobby Lobby are not connected by any religious affiliation.  Some may be Christian, others Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, etc.  Justice Ginsburg makes are very strong argument on this subject in Part III-C-1 of her dissent.

                Lastly, I have a problem with Justice Alito’s solution to the problem.  He suggests that the government pick up the tab for providing adequate contraceptive coverage for women employed by Hobby Lobby.  The government has already created a program to cover birth control for women who work for religious non-profits or other clearly defined religious organizations.  Justice Alito seems to think this is an easy solution – since this secular company is owned by a religious man with religious beliefs, let’s just include his company in the same group as non-profit organizations.  What happens when a company files suit to avoid having its insurance pay for vaccines or blood transfusions?  Is the Court going to say, “no problem, just have the government pay for it.”  The government, by the way, means you and me and taxpayers everywhere.  If we have to create/expand a government program to provide increasing amounts of health coverage to individuals (since the employers won’t cover it due to “religious grounds”), we’re going to pay more in taxes.