Not only did the recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby US Supreme Court Decision give corporations religious rights that only individuals had under the 1st amendment, but the decision confirmed the religious have extra-consitutional rights. It’s all because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was passed in 1993.
Dave Niose, from the American Humanist Association, explains:
The Hobby Lobby religious exemption to covering contraception case will be heard in the US Supreme Court starting on Tuesday. If corporations are given a right to religious freedom there is no telling how bad this will be for people. One bad result, that hasn’t been reported on by the media, is that both plaintiffs want to prevent Doctors from even talking about contraceptives to their employees. These corporations want to get between you and your doctor.
The big news this past week was the US Supreme Court said it would hear two cases that challenge the contraceptive requirement in the Affordable Care Act. Two companies, operated by devout religious people, claim that having to provide health insurance to their employees that would pay for contraceptives violates their religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The companies claim religious freedom by denying the religious freedom of their employees.
I was going to write a long essay pointing how wrong Hobby Lobby and the Mennonite owners of a wood cabinet company are but Jill Filipovic writing for The Guardian hits the nail on the head. Here is a sample but read the whole article as it gives a great summary of the issue:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled today in the case Autocam Corporation v. Kathleen Sebelius, that since for profit corporations can’t exercise religion like individuals, they can’t deny insurance coverage for contraceptives for their employees just because the owners are religious.
The owners of Autocam Corporation filed a lawsuit against the coming government mandate that insurance plans cover contraceptives. The company, located in Michigan, is owned and controlled by members of the Kennedy family, all of whom are practicing Roman Catholics.
During the debate over the government requiring employers to provide coverage for birth control, we’ve heard one argument, false as it is, that in doing so would infringe on religious beliefs. Although that isn’t a valid argument it does bring up the question about how far does a state go to accommodate religious beliefs? The real debate is where is that line between the public good and a person’s beliefs. When can that line be crossed? The simple answer is the line can be crossed when the religious beliefs might harm other people like those needing access to birth control.
Here is an example of protests from the Catholic church about the birth control mandate:
On Friday (02/01), President Obama’s administration announced a further watering down of the new health care rule that would require birth control coverage to be offered through an employee health plan. Previously churches were exempt but now religiously owned and operated non-profit groups and organizations will be able to gain an exemption if they request it. All exemptions would then shift the cost and provision of coverage to the insurance company. Of course the more vocal religious right groups say it’s not enough saying even private companies owned and operated by people who might have religious objections must be allowed to be exempt. They need to worry more about the people they serve rather than being so selfish.