Civil and Human Rights

Faith trumps birth control in US Supreme Court ruling

By Chantal Valery

 

Family-owned private companies can deny birth control coverage in their employee health care plans, the US Supreme Court said Monday in a ruling seen by some as a victory for religious freedom.

 

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based chain of arts and crafts stores whose devout Christian owners, the Green family, balked at implementing the contraception portion of President Barack Obama’s health care reforms.

 

“Our family is overjoyed by the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Hobby Lobby co-founder Barbara Green as anti-abortion activists cheered the outcome at the Supreme Court steps.

 

“The Court’s decision is a victory not just for our family business, but for all who seek to live out their faith,” added Green in a statement.

 

It was the first legal test of specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which seeks to extend health insurance to all Americans — and which the Supreme Court in 2012 deemed constitutional.

 

Under Obamacare, religious employers — notably the Roman Catholic Church, which fiercely opposes contraception — don’t have to include birth control in their employee health care plans.

 

– Claim to exemption challenged –

 

The Obama administration had argued that Hobby Lobby, as a corporation with 500 stores and 13,000 employees nationwide, couldn’t claim a similar exemption due to the religious beliefs of the Green family that owns it.

 

“Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of the women who are employed by these companies,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

 

“As millions of women know firsthand, contraception is often vital to their health and well-being.”

 

Central to Monday’s ruling was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that bars the federal government, without a compelling reason, from doing anything that “substantially burdens” an American’s right to exercise their faith.

 

Had they refused to comply, Hobby Lobby and a second plaintiff, a Pennsylvania wood-working firm owned by a Mennonite family, would have faced fines as stiff as $1.3 million a day.

 

“If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would,” said the ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, which defined Hobby Lobby as a “closely-held” business firmly in the hands of the family that built it.

 

– Strongly worded dissent –

 

In a strongly-worded dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Congress didn’t adopt the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a way to accommodate the beliefs of profit-making corporations.

 

“Until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in ‘the commercial, profit-making world’,” she said, a view that her two fellow women justices shared.

 

Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the law firm that represented Hobby Lobby, noted that the ruling concerns “small” family-owned companies, not large corporations.

 

“Over the past few years, the court has been very strong on religious liberties,” the lawyer added in a conference call with reporters.

 

But Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said Monday’s ruling could open a legal can of worms, as well as deny birth control coverage to “tens of thousands” of American women.”

 

“While the court purports to limit its ruling to closely-held corporations on this issue only, the majority opinion invites a number of ‘me, too’ religious objections by other companies on matters ranging from antidiscrimination law to other medical procedures such as blood transfusions or vaccinations,” she told AFP.

 

– Objected to morning-after pills, IUDs –

 

Obamacare mandates coverage for 20 forms of birth control, but the Greens strongly objected to four — two types of morning-after pills and two types of intrauterine devices, or IUDs — which they considered akin to abortion.

 

Earnest said Obama “believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them.”

 

He also called on Congress to take action to help women get essential services that may have been ruled out by the court’s ruling.

 

Hobby Lobby — which, unusually for an American retailer, closes its stores on Sundays — credits “God’s grace and provision” for its economic success.

 

Besides their arts and crafts empire, the Green family runs an affiliated chain of 35 Christian bookstores and contributes a share of their profits to Christian causes.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle