SCOTUS says no, but we think that might be the wrong answer. If the root of this debate were not grounded in religious preference, we might feel differently; however, it’s difficult to shy away from the fact that this debate arose as a result of a Christian corporation’s beliefs.
The fact of the matter is, even SCOTUS was fairly split on the question. In a 5-4 decision on Monday, the Christian-owned Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. won the legal provision to opt out of paying for employee contraceptive care. 5-4 is not exactly what one might call a landslide victory.
America is a BI-partisan nation … there are always a minimum of two sides to every debate, and this one just happened to lean more right-wing than some would have hoped. Does that mean we shouldn’t question the rationale behind the ruling? Of course not.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.’s case is based on the precedent set by the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says, “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion…” The case relied on this policy, which was a nearly unanimous court decision.
First of all, we take issue with such subjectivity as the term “substantially” in a legal matter like this. The act includes specific exceptions to the rule, of course, but in general, who was intended to determine how much one’s religious freedom might be burdened by a governmental policy?
It seems like, in the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS found that Obama Care’s requirement for employers to fund health care plans that include contraceptive care was too much of a burden for conservative employers. We can’t help but feel that an employer’s personal religious beliefs could not possibly be “substantially” burdened by simply asking that they fund a plan that applies to someone else entirely.
Employers were never asked to use contraceptives themselves, or condone pre-marital sex, or vote in favor of abortion … they were merely asked to provide access to sexual healthcare, which is a necessity in a country where sexual activity is not going away any time soon.
Constitution Daily reported that, back in 1997, the 1993 RFRA was determined to be unconstitutional. We wonder why the 2014 SCOTUS would allow for an outdated, possibly even unconstitutional, policy to stand as a basis for a major court decision.
Our fear is that, as has been the case in several instances with the past several administrations, SCOTUS has played too large of a role in policy-making, and agenda-setting. Obviously, the ruling disputes President Obama’s personal agenda, but does it have a leg to stand on in terms of the intended purpose of the Supreme Court?
If the RFRA was deemed unconstitutional almost a decade ago, this week’s court decision failed to do its job in interpreting the constitutionality of a law. Even if the RFRA had not been repealed back in 1997, SCOTUS failed to apply it correctly.
The debate should not be about the morals of using contraceptives … we are split on that here at the Daily 49er ourselves. The debate should focus on the role of SCOTUS and the goal of the current administration to provide basic care to meet the pressing needs of our fellow Americans.
If our government entities continue to fail us, perhaps we need a Plan B.
A pregnancy is not an illness, and the government has no business forcing the owners of a company to provide free contraceptives for its employees.
Getting pregnant requires a deliberate action on the part of the woman and her partner. If the employees decide to live a promiscuous life, and want to engage in irresponsible, or careless sexual activity, without the “inconvenience” of getting pregnant, why is it the responsibility of the employer to pay for that lack of responsibility.
And if contraceptives are being used as part of a couple’s family planing, that is still a very personal decision, and a personal choice, and it is not the employer’s responsibility to pay for the personal choices the employees make in their private lives.
You were talking about holding corporations accountable.
How about holding individuals responsible for their own decisions and their own actions.
You want employers to make it easier for employees to engage in irresponsible or careless behavior, and when you reward bad behavior, all you get is more bad behavior.
We can have different opinions about the ruling, and we can argue the details one way or another, but I look at the broader picture.
In this issue, as in many other issues, the difference between the two views or ideologies always boils down to the same basic principles.
You believe that the government knows best, and you are willing to let the government decide for you, what is best for you, your family, and your community.
And that, in spite of the fact that we all know the government is the most inefficient, wasteful, and often corrupt institution.
I on the other hand want the freedom and the right to make my own decisions, because we are all different, and I know better than anyone, what is best for me, my family, and my community.
And of course, all of that within the bounds of decency, and respect for the rights and freedoms of others.
So the question is, do you want to be in charge of you life, or do you want the government to decide for you.
If someone can afford a smart phone with a monthly payment, they can also afford to pay for their own sexual activity and particular birth control method. Hobby Lobby still provides for many other birth control methods including regular contraceptives, birth control pills, etc. It is a private company, and the ruling did not (as most often falsely claimed) turn corporations into people. Please read the ruling before you start spouting off idiocy.