The Supreme Court ruled this morning in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, and it held that the Obamacare mandate for employers to provide certain contraceptive coverage in health insurance violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That act requires the federal government not to impinge upon the religious practices or beliefs of persons in the USA except under certain rules. The rule relevant to the Hobby Lobby decision is that the government must use the least restrictive method to achieve its goals. The rules under Obamacare required Hobby Lobby to provide health insurance coverage to its employees that included free provision of 20 different types of birth control. Four of the twenty are the equivalent of early abortion. The owners of Hobby Lobby have a religious objection to abortion and do not want to cover these four. The government would not relent on the requirement for coverage, so Hobby Lobby either had to violate its religious principles and provide the coverage or else face enormous fines for non-compliance.
In its decision, the Supreme Court first held that despite the fact that Hobby Lobby is a corporation, it is a person under the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under the normal legal definitions, a "person" includes a corporation. The government argued that corporations could not have religious beliefs. Perhaps the strongest argument against that position was the government's own decision to consider non-profit corporations to be exempt from the mandate on religious grounds. Once the corporation was recognized as a person, the rest of the analysis was inevitable. Clearly, the government could have used less restrictive methods to achieve its end of getting contraceptive coverage for the Hobby Lobby employees. In fact, the government offered such a less restrictive alternative to those non-profit corporations that it exempted on religious grounds.
There are two important points that must be made here about this ruling: first, this is not a big deal. It is true that Obamacare rules were struck down, but only in the context of certain employers. This will not have any major effect on Obamacare. The second point is that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was passed by a Congress controlled by the Democrats and then was signed by president Bill Clinton. When you hear from the liberal pundits about how this is a terrible restriction inflicted on women by those evil conservatives at the Court, remember that it was the Democrats and Clinton who passed the law that required this result in the first place.
In its decision, the Supreme Court first held that despite the fact that Hobby Lobby is a corporation, it is a person under the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under the normal legal definitions, a "person" includes a corporation. The government argued that corporations could not have religious beliefs. Perhaps the strongest argument against that position was the government's own decision to consider non-profit corporations to be exempt from the mandate on religious grounds. Once the corporation was recognized as a person, the rest of the analysis was inevitable. Clearly, the government could have used less restrictive methods to achieve its end of getting contraceptive coverage for the Hobby Lobby employees. In fact, the government offered such a less restrictive alternative to those non-profit corporations that it exempted on religious grounds.
There are two important points that must be made here about this ruling: first, this is not a big deal. It is true that Obamacare rules were struck down, but only in the context of certain employers. This will not have any major effect on Obamacare. The second point is that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was passed by a Congress controlled by the Democrats and then was signed by president Bill Clinton. When you hear from the liberal pundits about how this is a terrible restriction inflicted on women by those evil conservatives at the Court, remember that it was the Democrats and Clinton who passed the law that required this result in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment