The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a pair of cases on whether corporations may refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraception to their workers based on the religious beliefs of the corporations’ owners.
The cases present a new challenge to President Obama’s health care law. The Supreme Court in 2012 upheld another part of the law, one that requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
The Obama administration has exempted many religious groups from the law’s requirements for contraception coverage. But it said for-profit corporations could not rely on religious objections to opt out of compliance with the law. The lower courts are divided over whether such corporations may object to generally applicable laws on religious liberty grounds.
These cases are totally bogus. No one is being required to use contraception.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t take blood transfusions. If one of them owns a company, do they get to decide if their employees live or die because there is no transfusion coverage? How about the military? We indirectly pay for thousands of transfusions per year to those wounded in war.
Christian Scientists use prayer to heal rather than modern medicine, at least until they get their asses in a sling. So, if they own a company, perhaps they should just not have health coverage at all?
I am tired of people trying the religious exemption. I have no problem with churches getting an exemption. I don’t want to force contraception on nuns and priests but enough is enough. The rules clearly tell parishoners what to do, not what to do for everyone else. I feel the same way about pharmacists who refuse to fill contraception prescriptions. They wouldn’t have a job for long or they would be sitting in the corner counting pills.
If the church or the Lord tells an individual not to use contraception, totally ok with me, just as long as the edict stops with that individual.
You may not like how the Supreme court will rule on this. Based on the Hosanna-Tabor decision from 2012 (which was a 9-0 ruling), it’s hard to see how the court is going to compel Catholic institutions to purchase coverage for things they are opposed to. (Obviously this isn’t just about Catholics but they are the easiest example to use.)
I’m sure you would say Notre Dame should provide contraceptives to their students and employees, but based on Hosanna-Tabor, if the Catholic church says that education is part of their “ministry” the Supreme court will likely give them a pass.
The Hosanna-Tabor decision was a real surprise when it came out, especially that it was 9-0. The Supreme court basically said that a woman who was suing a Lutheran school for sexual harassment could not sue the school because the US courts had no jurisdiction over the hirings & firings of “ministers” The woman was not an ordained minister and didn’t even teach religion. (I think she taught math) But the Supreme court said that if the Lutherans say teaching math is part of their ministry, the US courts can’t second guess them.
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. Just that it’s going to be very hard to come up with a rationale to compel church institutions to purchase contraceptive coverage that doesn’t go against Hosanna-Tabor. The Hobby Lobby case may be different though (private company vs. religious institution.)
I don’t think either case is a religious institution. One is a chain of hobby shops and the other is a Mennonite furniture business.
I also don’t think universities and hospitals should be exempt since you brought it up. I have no idea how this case will turn out. I am just giving my opinion which …take it or leave it.
It will be an interesting case to follow. One last opinion, I find the contraception taboo to be so primitive and antequated that I almost can’t talk about it. Who, in this day and age……wants to impose their religious beliefs on others like that?
I think I seriously understand snake handling better than a ban on contraception. It makes more sense.
You are correct. The NYT article is about two different cases involving private companies. I only knew about Hobby Lobby. There is yet another case involving Notre Dame that is working its way up to the Supreme court, but apparently hasn’t gotten there yet. That’s the one I think Hosanna-Tabor will apply to.
So I agree with you on these two cases (Hobby Lobby and the Mennonite furniture business) I don’t have a problem with some limitations on religious freedoms when people make a choice to go into business. Same thing on pharmacists.
But I do disagree with you on religiously affiliated hospitals and universities. My opinion in these cases is that my opinion doesn’t matter. It’s not my business to tell any religion what their beliefs are or compel them to act against their beliefs. (except for very extreme cases where the religion is inciting violence or something like that)
I don’t have to agree with the Catholic church’s position on contraception (and I don’t) but they still have every right to have their position. If I don’t like it, I can go to a different church and buy contraception on my own.
I think it is an absurd position but its their right to think that. However, when universities and hospitals function as secular institutions, then they lose their leg to stand on. We are talking employees here. Part of being an institution is providing local employment, rather than propping up the faithful. I can see some janitor or food service worker affording a vasectomy right now. NOT!!!
As far as students go…that isn’t under discussion. I think its STUPID but certainly within the right of the university. Stupidity isn’t illegal. I also think snake handling is stupid. Apparently that is illegal. Isn’t that a religious freedom?
The money used to pay for the health insurance is the employee’s money not the company’s money. The health insurance is not for the direct benefit for the company and therefore they have no moral interest in whether it covers contraceptives or not. This is overreach by companies into the private lives of employees. If the employers win, companies will be able to base compensation on other personal health issues. Smokers get a 10% cut in pay, for example.
Freedom for companies is anti-freedom for employees.
I hadn’t thought about that, Ed. Thanks for your contribution.
@Ed myers
The money used to pay for the health insurance is the company’s money. They are providing the benefits.
The benefits are provided in the employees name, however. How about that 401(k) money. Whose money is it?
I think Catholic hospitals have, for centuries, contributed more to humanity than propping up the faithful!! And I think the role of an institution especially a University goes beyond providing jobs.
Are we only to respect opinions of those that have dissolved all convictions?
Catholic hospitals and universities are just one part of the pie. There are all sorts of different denominations out there with universities and hospitals, often in the strangest places. If they function as a church, they are exempt. If they function as a hospital or university, and have others not of the faith employed or in attendance, then just act like everyone else and go by the law.
I am tired of religions trying to play it both ways. Either they are or they aren’t. No fair switching in the middle, depending on what the issue is.
@Ed myers
“The money used to pay for the health insurance is the employee’s money not the company’s money.”
Maybe, maybe not. There still are instances where companies bear some, if not most or even all, of the cost of employee health insurance. If the company does contribute funding, then perhaps they do have a say so in what insurance they will provide. Some organizations have a “cafeteria” benefits system and in those case, if an employee doesn’t take advantage of a benefit, they may receive some increase in pay. So maybe even then the company may still be able to make some policy about what they will/will not cover. But if the employee bears all the cost burden, then I would absolutely agree they have the right to buy what they want.
@Moon-howler
“Who, in this day and age……wants to impose their religious beliefs on others like that?”
You are kidding aren’t you Moon? You might start by talking to Pat Roberts or maybe the Family Research Council or any number of evangelical churches to include the Jehovah’s Witnesses. When was the last time you answered their knock on your door?
Actually I was being sarcastic. I know there are all sorts of nosey-holes who want in your business.
I always paid a portion of my own health care. I think companies can decide cost related things but not whether or not I get contraception or blood transfusions.
To me, a tubal ligation or a vasectomy is surgery. Period. Not the decision of your company.
Elective surgery which changes things.
I am not sure it is always elective surgery. There are people who cannot have more children for medical reasons.
Regardless, is it your employer’s business?
If we go by what insurance companies allow, a triple by pass could be considered elective surgery.
Then it isn’t elective. Employees are free to pay 100%. Group rates are based on experience. Just how it works.
Have JD triple bypass surgery and it was not elective. Where did you get that idea?
I was being sarcastic. Insurance companies can turn anything into elective surgery. You know how some people feel about lawyers? That is how I feel about insurance companies.
Not JD–had
Triple bypass is probably not elective under any policy.
I guess I am going to have to get a sarcasm button for you and George.
Actually insurance companies do consider lots of surgeries elective. Let’s take back surgery, carpel tunnel surgery, gall bladder surgery that isn’t at the critical stage…..
I thought some of those inconsistencies were what the ACA as supposed to clear up.
I am going to stick to my stance that religiously affiliated hospitals and universities can just follow the law. Many are corporations anyway. I don’t think everyone who disapproves of sterilization, contraception, blood transfusions, or eating meat gets to exempt their employees. Those practices should be for the faithful, not the employees.
I say tomato, you say tomahto.
Why is an employer such as a Health System treated any differently because of its ownership? Take two health systems – one Catholic and one not. The Catholic Health system (a non profit) pays no income tax even if they have a profit and also in many cases pays no property tax on its facilities. As the Hospital expands the surrounding tax base is eroded and the locals subsidize the health system. A privately owned health system pays property taxes and often pays income taxes – is that fair?
What about a woman wanting her driver id photo taken while wearing a hijab or burqa? What about jury/trial testimony?
We often take the defensive side when we want to agree with the limitations but often do not take a defensive side when it is not part of our values.
Because the private catholic hospital takes people without insurance?
Plenty of hospitals take care of people without insurance.
I don’t even care if they perform vasectomies, just so their employees have full coverage. If they don’t want to do that then pay the people to get a rider.
So are you suggesting that just Catholic hospitals get the exemption? How about the 7th day Adventist hospitals? Methodist hospitals? Jewish hospitals? I think all of them need to treat their employees according to the law. Should we exempt the lawn care people from minimum wage if they word for a church owned institute? Should we allow 10 year olds to work in the attics because they are smaller and can fit into small places if they work for church owned institutes?
If they function as a secular institute, then the employees should get whatever the law entitles them to.
Yes, before anyone asks, Muslims should have to sell pork and wine if they work at Walmart also. If they don’t want to do that, find another job.
@Lyssa
as does any/every hospital – it is Required by Law that a hospital stabilize an individual without verifying their ability to pay and many hospitals provide more services than required by law. That is the ironic part is that many people feel they can go without insurance because the EMLTA provides for emergency treatment. If EMLTA were repealed more people would make sure that they had coverage.
Just like when people do not pay for fire service and then complain when their house burns down and the fire department does not put it out – the media makes the fire dept out to be the bad guys. If you do not pay you should not get the service.
I daresay that catholic hospitals took anyone just not those that were there on an emergency basis. And I would further speculate that once stabilized those that were emergency patients were kept and cared for.
Just to annoy Moon – my only point was that catholic Hospitals did more than prop up the faithful.
As a practicing Catholic, I am disappointed by those that use religion for political purposes and who are so fast to judge using medieval tactics to re-frame Catholicism. That’s not the religion I was raised with. I was taught about all religions and to draw similarities and differences but to do so with respect. Most of the priests and nuns that taught me from pre-K through college not only taught kindness, they practiced it.
I agree that as business owners they should deal with the majority. But I respect a sincere reason not to. I don’t respect a politically motivated reason not to. But I won’t tear them down over it.
I don’t know why this has to be about Catholic hospitals and universities. In fact, neither of the Supreme Court cases are about Catholic anything. I think one group is evangelical and the other is Mennonite or Amish.
I didn’t say Catholic hospitals propped up the faithful. I said the opposite. If they only hired Catholics then perhaps I might feel they were exempt. Of course then 500 people would jump me because I had said to let the Catholics buy their own contraception.
Well, I,guess that was a euphemism for religious hospitals. Hopefully it’s Mennonite – lot of Amish don’t use electricity ..
@Lyssa
There’s a joke in there somewhere….Amish hospital……..almost…….
nah. couldn’ quite make one.
Moon sez:
“Yes, before anyone asks, Muslims should have to sell pork and wine if they work at Walmart also. If they don’t want to do that, find another job.”
I was checking out in the Walmart in Manassas and had two bottles of wine. The Muslim man who was at the cash register would not touch the wine and called over a woman to check out and bag those two items and then he resumed the checkout. I wrote to the store manager, gave him the employee’s name and was told he would be spoken to. Haven’t tried it again but perhaps should.
Moon, earlier you claimed you were being sarcastic about people imposing their religious beliefs on others. Well here is a Pew Research comment about a study conducted by the Carnegie Mellon Institute: “A new study by Carnegie Mellon University found that in the most Republican states in the country, employers may be less likely to interview job candidates whose social networking profiles indicate that the applicants are Muslim.” More “nose-holes” I guess.
“Mosey-holes”. Damned arthritic fingers!
I don’t want to deny anyone a job because they are Muslim, but I think if they work at Walmart or similar type stores, they can’t “not touch the wine, pork or contraceptives.” I don’t mean to single out Muslims either. That goes for anyone.
If doing your job entails things you shouldn’t be doing, get a different job.
@Moon-howler Health benefits, like retirement benefits, 401 K, education–the whole panoply benefits–ought to be thought of as part of an employee’s compensation, because that is exactly what it is. Until quite recently, American companies weren’t required to offer ANY benefits, or to offer them to “full time” only employees. I think we’re all familiar with major American corporations–Walmart,McDonalds, and probably surprisingly Weight Watchers–come immediately to mind. I have considerable experience with the latter, and here is how they run the scam: you are hired to work on an hourly on call basis, with the promise that when you become full time, you’ll qualify for benefits. But, surprise, surprise: you can NEVER become full time, so you never become eligible for benefits. So, where do these employees get health insurance? Well, until recently, a very large share of them got it, at least for their children, thru Medicaid. And who pays for Medicaid? All American taxpayers do.
If companies aren’t scamming you then insurance companies are.
I was fortunately enough to have a good policy that my company mostly paid for. I was also fortunate enough to be healthy most of my life. The insurance companies still found ways to gouge.
@cargo – 🙂
I agree with Moon. Well spoken.
The right to worship (some nonexistent God) does not or should not preclude responsibility to law. Good grief, if you accept that it does then one can concoct a religion that violates any given law that you can think of. In point of fact there are established cults in existence that believe in sex rituals with children. (I’m thinking of Crowley). And of course lots of religions including Christianity have a history of blood sacrifice.
And of course the burkhas and drivers’ license pictures …
If a law has a purpose, other than having been constructed to oppress religion, then it should be respected. I can’t fathom how anyone could have any sense of logic and disagree.
No one has mentioned shat I think is the most interesting element of these cases: Can a corporation have a constitutionally protected religious belief? We learned in Citizens United that a corporation can have a free speech right in an electoral context. Does a corporation have a protectable First Amendment right to act on religious principles?
I’ve spent a lot of time in churches and a lot of time around corporations (in entirely separate aspects of my life). I have not yet met a corporation that had much of a spiritual instinct.
Oh dear. “shat” should read “what”. Most of my typos do not offend public morals or sensibilities. This one does.
Around here no one probably even caught it.
How deflating. I always thought everyone read my comments closely.
But lest the major point be lost – do commenters here think a corporation (as opposed to an individual) can have a First Amendment right to a religious expression?
Absolutely not. A corporation should not have rights to religious expression. How does a corporation “pray?’
The same way it has a political opinion, I guess.
I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here, so nobody bite my head off, but “praying” doesn’t have to be part of a religion. Again, I’m just playing Devil’s advocate, but you could make an argument that when a company takes actions that decrease their profits based for religious reasons, is that a form of religion?
Take Chic-fil-A being closed on Sunday. Even though they (wink, wink, nudge nudge) say it’s just so their employees have a day off, it’s pretty obvious that they close on the Christian Sabbath. Isn’t that a form of religious expression?
The issue here is really very similar to Citizens United. I know a lot of people don’t like the Citizens United decision, but the legal nut at the center of the decision was a pretty good idea. The Supreme court said that groups of people (whether corporation, labor union, charity, etc) have the same rights that individual members have. We might not like some of the implications of that, but going the other way I think would be a really bad idea. (e.g.: “I’m sorry, but you NAACP folks have to leave. Only individual protesters are allowed”)
I don’t care that chic-fil-A is closed on Sunday. Leggetts also stayed closed on Sundays. That’s their right to lose a days worth of business. Lots of businesses in NYC lose business on Saturdays for the same reason. Their right. Yes, it does inconvenience me at times. I will survive. I don’t think it is a religious “expression.”
I will have to think about what the word should be. I don’t think it has anything to do with the contraception issue though.
Anyone I know who has not used contraception for religious reasons has not burned a diaphragm in my yard in protest. It is THEY who don’t use contraception according to the religious teachings of their church. Those teachings are for the flock, not for the general world. I will confess to knowing only a few couples since I have been an adult.
It’s easier to talk about people who don’t drink because that ban is more talked about. Let’s take Mormons for example. They don’t mash liquor bottles in protest. They don’t refuse to touch alcohol in a bottle. It is THET who aren’t supposed to drink. If my neighbor kids helped carry in the groceries they didn’t refuse to bring in the cartons of cokes or my cigarettes. They knew THEY weren’t to use those products but they didn’t wimp off and refuse to touch them. Had I asked them to buy me a 6 pack at the store, they would have done it. They just wouldn’t have drunk whatever it was a 6 pack of.
A corporation isn’t a “group of people”. It’s a legal construct designed to promote commerce. It has some characteristics at law that make it indistinguishable from a person (it is often referred to as a legal “fiction” in that regard), but in other ways, it clearly is not a person. I agree with Furby that the contraception issue as it has come up from the two Circuits to the courts has some close similarities to Citizens United. Where I wonder about the dividing line is whether a corporation (at least in the Hobbyland case) will be found to have protectable religious rights, distinct from those of the individuals who formed the corporation.
Scout,
Continuing to play Devil’s advocate here, but if you say that a corporation isn’t a group of people and just a legal construct, can’t you say the same about a labor union, an academic institution, a marriage or even a government? None of these exist in the eyes of the law except as collections of people with a common purpose. The Citizens Union case in essence says that individuals don’t forfeit rights when they are assembled for a common purpose.
Moon-howler,
As for the Mormon and liquor, again, it isn’t about how the LDS chooses to interpret their beliefs. The question is can the government compel a religious organization to participate in something that goes against their beliefs. If the government were to mandate that BYU offer red wine at meals for health reasons, I would oppose that for the same reason as the contraception mandate on religious institutions. If you don’t like the LDS’s views on liquor, don’t join their church or go to an LDS school. (Reminder: I have already said that I do think there is a different standard for religious employees at a secular organization; I’m just talking about actual religious institutions (churches, schools, hospitals, charities, etc.)
You aren’t compelling the individuals to use contraception.
Yes, but you are compelling the religious institutions to fund something that is antithetical to their beliefs.
At the end of the day for me, contraception is readily available and quite cheap for generic pills or condoms. I don’t see where the negative (the small subset of the population who work at religiously affiliated institutions has to purchase their own contraception) outweighs the positive (not violating the 1st amendment by compelling religious institutions to do things contrary to their beliefs.)
I might think differently if contraception were expensive or harder to get, but heck you can buy contraception from a vending machine. And yes, I know there are forms of contraception that are more expensive, but that doesn’t take away the fact that there ARE cheap, effective forms of contraception that are available. Generic versions of the pill cost $40 for a year’s supply at Target.
Why is subsidizing birth control so important that we can’t give religious institutions a reasonable exception? We do it for the draft, and that’s a matter of life and death. I just don’t see the harm in having an exception for religious institutions.
What about all those Quakers who don’t get a tax break from funding wars?
Religious Institutions can’t have religious beliefs. Only the people running the institutions can have religious beliefs. Using contraception is antithetical to their beliefs, not the existence of contraception. Contraception is not antithetical to many Christians, Jews, Buddists, etc.
“Religious Institutions can’t have religious beliefs. ”
If you honestly believe that, then there is no point in discussing any further. It’s honestly a rather silly claim considering that one of the principal organizations we are talking about is the Catholic church. You really believe that the Catholic church can’t have religious beliefs? Or the LDS Church? You can go to Amazon and buy a copy of the beliefs of both of them. How can Amazon ship me something that by your logic doesn’t exist?
Not that it will matter, but US law agrees with me. US law defines a “religious institution” is an organization that is “animated by religious belief”. The IRS (which, oddly enough, is the agency that defines what is a religion in the US) uses a slightly different standard. They use four factors, the most significant is “a recognized creed and form of worship” So both the law and IRS recognize that religious institutions have beliefs.
I think even a hard core atheist like Richard Dawkins would agree that religious institutions have beliefs. I’m sure he’d disagree with them, but they very obviously exist.
As for the Quakers, the differing factor is the fungibility of money. The taxes of any (or even every) Quaker could be used to fund other government activities without one penny going to fund wars. You can’t make the same argument with contraception because premiums are not fungible that way. A separate rider clause for contraception would do that, but HHS won’t allow it.
The people in religious institutes have beliefs. How can an inanimate object have a belief? An institution is a thing, not a him or her.
Hobby shops and furniture shops just aren’t religious institutions. Churches are exempt. I have no problem with that. We are arguing semantics. I would venture to say that it all depends on the context.
Of course there is a set of beliefs attached to various religions–which would include my favorite snake handlers even. However, The beliefs are from the people, not from some IRS definition.
I find it “smilable” that the people in some of these institutions tried very hard to get other institutions like the US military, specifically, Fort Hood, not to recognize Wiccans as a bona fide religion. They lost, by the way.
I would also argue about the fungibility of what’s covered vs what’s used in health coverage. I never once used a lot of things that were in my policy. However, I could if I wanted to.
This just seems so easy to me. Cover everyone for everything. Everyone isn’t going to use everything. If someone is forbidden by whomever to use contraception then they shouldn’t. That’s pretty simple. Whoever is being true to their man-made beliefs and everyone should be happy.
If any of those people had a policy with the county, contraception would be on it and if they were county tax payers, they would be funding someone’s contraception.
Life isn’t just that cut and dry.
@ Furby: a corporation has a separate legal existence apart from its shareholders. The legal fiction is that the law treats it as a distinct person for some purposes. None of the examples you offer (a labor union, a university, a marriage, a government) have these unique “personhood” attributes (I suppose you might be able to incorporate a union or a university in some jurisdictions or some circumstances, but that’s another story). The Citizens United case could not have been decided on the rationale it was decided on were it not for the unique person-quality of a corporation.
Scout,
You are factually incorrect about the “personhood” argument being unique to corporations, especially when it relates to the Citizens United case. Labor unions are treated exactly the same as corporations under Citizens United. “The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment”
Note that the key element is the same here. Corporations, churches, labor unions, universities, etc. gain their rights because they are associations of individuals and the individuals in those associations do not lose their rights by virtue of joining the association.
The “personhood” argument is a red herring, and to be honest it strengthens the position that I am playing Devil’s advocate for. If corporations have “personhood” then they should have the same protections as other persons when it comes to religious expression and should not be compelled to violated their (the corporations) religious beliefs. And once again, I am playing Devil’s advocate here. I am not saying this is my own opinion. I already stated that I do feel there can be reasonable restrictions on corporations vs. people.
Moon-howler, You views on religious beliefs are also factually wrong at least as they relate to US law, but its obvious you have an axe to grind when it comes to organized religion so I’m not going to bother debating the point with you.
Furby,
I think you are trying to take my A1 rights on my own blog. Tell me it isn’t true.
I don’t have an issue with organized religion, just organized religion that doesn’t stay self contained with its own members. Religion always seems to want to tap others on the shoulder.
One of my favorite organizations is Americans United (for the Separation of Church and State). That should be a strong hint as to how I feel about religion in the public life. You are really off the mark as to how I feel personally.
I also noted that you feel very free to tell others they are wrong about how they view issues on public policy. Does it occur to you that might be seen as being “full of yourself?”
I have never tried to take away your rights to say anything you want. Moreover, that’s demonstrably false. Stop being overly dramatic.
All I’ve said is that your statements on religious organizations are factually wrong as they relate to US law. You are free to say anything you want. You can say 2+2=5 as much as you want. It will still be wrong, but you are free to say whatever you want.
Also, note that I never said your opinion was wrong. Only your statement of fact. I may disagree with your opinion on something, but that doesn’t make it wrong, just different. Facts, on the other hand are either true or false. And how “full of myself” or “uppity” I am has nothing to do with it.
You are free to believe that US law shouldn’t recognize religious organizations as having religious beliefs and have certain rights as an organization. And you are free to (incorrectly) state that they don’t. You are even free to pass your opinion off as a “fact”. But reality is still says otherwise.
Furby, I didn’t say you were uppity. I didn’t say I was right. I gave my opinion. I think the Supreme Court thinking is wrong but again, that’s opinion. There will be those who agree and those who don’t.
Actually, you were dismissive.
Are you an attorney? I am not so I don’t even attempt to argue Constitutional law. I usually defer to Scout.