The Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments in March in a case involving a for-profit corporation, Hobby Lobby, owned by a religious family that doesn’t want to pay for healthcare coverage for its employees who use certain forms of birth control, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Lower courts have split on this matter, so the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the case was welcomed by people on both sides of the appeal.
The discussion in the lower courts
Point: The Affordable Care Act requires most employers to provide health insurance, including morning after pills and intrauterine devices, for their employees.
Counterpoint: Providing coverage for women to use those objectionable forms of birth control is against my personal religious beliefs, and I own the corporation that employs these women. I therefore have a First Amendment right, under the free exercise clause, to exercise my religious beliefs and run my corporation according to those beliefs.
Point: The government has a compelling interest, namely gender equality and the health and welfare of its citizens, to enforce this law, which would supersede the right to free exercise, even if you had that right.
Counterpoint: Then if there’s a compelling interest, the government shouldn’t exclude churches or corporations that have fewer than 50 employees from this law.
Point: But if you’re a corporation, you don’t have any right to the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment gave that right only to persons.
Counterpoint: In the Citizens United case of 2010, the Supreme Court said corporations are like people in that they have the First Amendment right of free speech.
Point: The Supreme Court said that, all right, but they never said the free exercise of religion was a right that was enjoyed by corporations.
Counterpoint: The free exercise right and the free speech right are both in the First Amendment, so the Supreme Court should treat them equally.
Point: Then I suppose you would agree that if I am a Christian Scientist who owns a large employer, I don’t have to pay for coverage for major surgery, which may (and probably will) involve a blood transfusion, right? Blood transfusions would be completely against my religion.
Counterpoint: Yes, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found in this case that a “religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values. As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other,” the 10th Circuit ruled.
Point: Well, the 3rd Circuit said just the opposite: “As the (owners) have decided to utilize the corporate form, they cannot ‘move freely between corporate and individual status to gain the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of the respective forms.’ ”
What do you think the Supreme Court will decide?
