Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court
In a deeply divisive case pitting advocates of religious liberty against
women’s right’s groups, the Supreme Court said today that two for
profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to
provide a full range of contraceptives at no cost to their employees
pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito the court held that as
applied to closely held corporations the Health and Human Services
regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act. Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts,
Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony
Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.
The decision is a victory for the Green family that owns the Hobby Lobby
arts and crafts chain and the Hahns who own Conestoga, a cabinet making
company, who had challenged the so called contraceptive mandate saying
it forced them to either violate their faith or pay ruinous fines. The
government defended the provision as an essential part of health care
coverage for women.
Here's what you need to know about the decision:
What did the court rule?
The court rejected the government’s claim that neither the owners nor
the corporations could bring a religious liberty claim. “Protecting the
free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga …
protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those
companies,” Alito wrote.
Alito says the court has “little trouble” concluding that the HHS
contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of region: "The
Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by
the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way
that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the
coverage.”
What else did Alito hold in his majority opinion?
“The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the
least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the
majority opinion.
Alito wrote that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage
required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an
embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to
provide the coverage … HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has
not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal
without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the
objecting parties in these cases.”
"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby,
Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who
own and control those FRFR companies,” Alito wrote in the majority
opinion.
Alito said the opinion was limited to closely held corporations: “Our
decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage
mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s
religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations,
may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat
the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments
about the least restrictive means of providing them. “
What did Ginsburg's dissent say?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined on the merits by Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Steven Breyer.
In her dissent Ginsburg –disagreed with Alito --and worried about what
other challenges might come next. :”Reading the Act expansively, as the
court does, raises a host of “Me, too” questions. Can an employer in
business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions,
vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based
on the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those
medical practices.”
Ginsburg wrote , “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga
would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and
covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their
employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would
otherwise secure”
She took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench.
What did Alito say about freedom of religion?
Alito: “The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage
demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an
embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to
provide the coverage … HHs has not shown that it lacks other means of
achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the
exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”
Does the law apply to corporations?
Alito: “Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby
Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans
who own and control those FRFR companies.”
What are liberals and allied groups saying?
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “I disagree with the Supreme Court’s
decision in the case of Harris v. Quinn. Many of the basic workplace
standards and protections that we take for granted as Americans are
thanks to the efforts of organized labor. These benefits have been
sought and achieved on behalf of all workers, regardless of whether or
not they’ve paid union dues. I fear that this decision will seriously
diminish the capacity of labor unions to represent the best interests of
American workers who have fought for and won significant progress on
wages, benefits and working conditions, and jeopardize the progress that
has been made over the last century.”
What are conservatives and allied groups saying?
“This is a great victory for religious liberty – the bedrock of our
founding,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.
“In living out our religious convictions, there are certain things we
must not do. This is why we are at a watershed moment. Religious people
will no longer be ordered to take action that our religion says we must
not take.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, on Hobby
Lobby: “The Supreme Court today upheld the liberty at the heart of the
Constitution: the right to religious freedom. The Court rightly
concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects religious
business owners just as much as it protects their employees. RFRA
guarantees not just a right of religious worship or speech, but
religious exercise. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed religious
freedoms that literally centuries of Americans have enjoyed from even
before the founding of this country.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins learned of the ruling
this morning as he met with the Hahn family, founders and owners of
Conestoga Wood Specialties: "The Supreme Court has delivered one of the
most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We
are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far
by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their
consciences under threat of crippling fines.
What are prominent GOP members of Congress saying?
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex.: “Today's victory in the Hobby Lobby case is
terrific news -- but now is no time to rest. We cannot rely on the
courts alone to defend our religious liberty”
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: “I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to
protect the religious freedom of all Americans, both individually and
collectively. The notion that religious freedom belongs only to some,
and even then only in private, defies our nation's traditions, our laws,
and our Constitution. And as the Supreme Court rightfully said today,
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in
saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and
not unnecessarily burdened
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn: “I am extremely encouraged by today’s
Supreme Court decision to uphold the religious liberty rights of the
Green family of Hobby Lobby.
Remind me, what happened during oral arguments?
Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the companies told the Justices in March
that for-profit corporations—with sincerely held religious
beliefs—should not have to provide coverage for four FDA approved
contraceptives. The Green Family, who are evangelical Christians and the
Hahns, who are Mennonites, object to four of the drugs and devices
because they say they have the potential to destroy an embryo.
Clement argued the law substantially burdens his clients and that the
government—which has exempted others from the law—had no compelling
justification to force Hobby Lobby and other closely held businesses to
provide the coverage.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices at oral
arguments that the challengers to the law were asking for a radical
departure from precedent . In briefs he said, “The Supreme Court has
never granted a religious accommodation to a secular business that comes
at the expense of its employees.”
He argued that the corporations’ claimed burden is “too attenuated”
because it is the plan participants who decide which services to use in
consultation with their doctors.” Verrilli argued that the mandate is a
part of a comprehensive insurance scheme and serves the government’s
interest in public health and gender equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment