The Supreme Court has chosen religion over human rights in the case of Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. On June 30, the Court ruled that certain for-profit companies cannot be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees.
The complaint over the Affordable Care Act’s requirement was made by Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma arts and crafts retail store operated by Southern Baptists, and Conestoga Wood Specialties of Pennsylvania, which is owned by a Mennonite family. They argued that this requirement violates their religious freedom as it requires them to pay for two types of morning-after pills and intrauterine devices, which they believe are the same as abortion.
The company had also rejected a compromise made by the government, which would see their insurers, or third party administrators, pay for the contraceptives; they argued that the insurers and third party administrators are complicit in offending their religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court’s decision promotes the connection between the church and state: it imposes religious beliefs on the companies’ employees who may not share them.
Indeed, many supporters of the ruling have called it a victory for religious freedom, but it is a violation of the First Amendment of the American Constitution. In addition to the free exercise of religion, the amendment also says that the state is not allowed to make laws that respect a religious establishment.
Hobby Lobby has no right to control the reproductive rights of its female employees.
The ruling has also violated the Equal Rights Amendment of the Constitution, which protects women’s rights, as a company has no right to control the reproductive rights of their female employees.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was against the companies’ claims, argues that the ruling would “deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage,” and noting that the Affordable Care Act requirement is important to women who work minimum wage jobs, as an IUD without coverage costs a month’s pay. Eliana Dockertman, writer for Time, also brings up the important point that most women who are economically and geographically restricted cannot choose their place of employment in order to obtain coverage.
Furthermore, if the exemption is made on religious grounds for health care coverage of contraption, then who is to say that it could not extend to objections by companies run by Jehovah’s Witnesses to blood transfusions, Scientologists to antidepressants, Jews to medication derived from non-kosher animals, and various religious groups to vaccines?
A broader consequence is that the Supreme Court’s granting religious freedom rights to companies could affect laws on employment, safety, and civil rights. The most alarming consequence is that the Supreme Court’s granting of religious accommodation could extend to other laws not related to health care or employment. By then, the union of church and state will have been complete.
