On Monday, June 30th, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, allowing private for-profit companies to opt out of the federal health law’s contraceptive coverage requirement based on religious objections. This ruling ignited political debate mainly between pro-choice and pro-life masses. The Court cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993as the main piece of legislation protecting Hobby Lobby and similar corporations. Hobby Lobby owners are evangelical Christians and say that the mandatory contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates their religious values. They implore that life begins at the moment of conception and therefore object to provide birth control methods to their employees, seeing that coverage as a direct line of support towards values they don’t agree with.
This decision poses danger to women’s reproductive healthcare in America, and I’m not okay with that. Here are some thoughts to consider while reading over this case:
1. Nonprofit, religious organizations should get religious exemptions.
I do not think that the Court should take away all religious exemptions to mandatory contraceptive coverage. Since the beginning of ACA legislation, the Obama administration and the Supreme Court have always offered contraceptive coverage exemptions for nonprofit religious organizations. It is clear that organizations like churches are comprised of individuals who promote the same faith and believe in all the same religious tenants. It makes sense for these organizations to have exemptions because their mission as a group is to foster religious purity. Non-profit employers are not required to pay for contraceptive coverage because they have always had religious protections and exemptions.
2. For-profit, non-religious organizations should not get religious exemptions.
Chief Justice John Marshall defined the appropriate role of corporations with his 1819 ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland. The Court ruled on Monday that private for-profit corporations have religious rights under RFRA just as individuals do. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg noted that until this law, the Supreme Court has never recognized a for-profit corporation as deserving religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. This case sets new precedent basically stating that corporations are the same as individuals and should be afforded the same religious protections. Corporations could now very possibly demand additional rights that were previously reserved for individuals only.
Additionally, workers who sustain the operations for for-profit companies are not comprised of one religious group. Just because the owners of Hobby Lobby are evangelical Christians, does not mean that all their employees are. In fact, by law, no religious-based criteria can be enacted when hiring for-profit employees. Therefore, enacting this legislation would be harmful to third party individuals who do not share religious objections and need contraceptives for health purposes.
3. This decision creates a slippery slope
I have been considering an important question: if this issue weren’t contraceptives, if it were any other health issue would the Court still make a similar ruling? Here’s an example. Followers of Jehovah’s Witness do not believe in receiving blood transfusions because they believe that the Bible strictly prohibits the ingestion of blood. If the owners of Hobby Lobby were Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they wanted an exemption for providing health care coverage including blood transfusions, would they get the exemption? Probably not. The state would probably step in and say that there is a compelling interest to make sure all employees have access to blood transfusions. I think the same logic should apply here. It would be dangerous if the Court allowed all corporations to pick apart the ACA and choose parts that don’t align with their religious opinions. Women’s reproductive care is a necessity—and no religion should be trying to limit accessibility to proper healthcare.
4. Women need comprehensive reproductive care coverage
Free exercise battles between church and state usually end in one of two ways. (A) The Court acknowledges the individual’s right to free exercise of religion and offers them an exemption to an existing law. (B) The Court acknowledges that the law may infringe on free exercise, but there is a compelling state interest to not allow a religious exemption.
In this case I wish that the second option was adopted. I understand that some religions do not support the use of some contraceptives and they reserve every right to believe that. However, extending this exemption to the entire corporation of Hobby Lobby is dangerous and detrimental to all of their female employees.
Contraceptive coverage is necessary for women in America. Proper coverage could help safeguard the health of women against unintended pregnancy. It also protects women who would be in hazardous health conditions if they became pregnant. In addition, contraceptive coverage serves many purposes aside from strictly pregnancy related issues. Birth control can alleviate painful menstrual symptoms, regulate irregular menstrual cycles, prevent certain cervical cancers, and decrease the chance of pelvic issues.
In conclusion, it is clear how important contraceptives are to women’s health. It is unclear why anyone thinks that the boss of a corporation should be making decisions about his/her employees’ bodies. It’s unclear why five conservative men are the ones allowing restrictions on birth control over the objections of the three women on the Supreme Court. Women were promised comprehensive reproductive care coverage under the ACA, and that’s exactly what they should get—regardless of their employers’ religious affiliations.