supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf I am attaching the link to the Burwell/HHS v.Hobby Lobby opinion in case anyone is inclined to read it. Although it is tempting to view the decision from a typical liberal/conservative trench, that would really misunderstand the case and the law applied to it. First, this isnt a Constitutional case, its a statutory one. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 says that government cant burden the exercise of religion even when it involves a law of general applicability (i.e., the laughably titled Affordable Care Act). Its a law of general applicability but it has burdened this privately held corporation (as well as the co-plaintiffs). The government failed to meet its burden of showing that the law (ACA) was the least restrictive means to guarantee contraception. The least restrictive means test is an intricate doctrine in Constitutional and statutory analysis. The government has to show that this was the only way to achieve its legitimate objective and its not the only way. The government could basically make contraception a free service if it so chose. It chose not to. It chose to burden companies with this provision. Also, the opinion does not apply to corporations. It applies to privately held corporations whose owners express a sincere religious view protected by the RFRA of 1993. Hobby Lobby and the co-plaintiffs met that burden. So the government lost on the law (as it should have), however they also had a bad factual argument. The ACA requires corporations to provide these contraceptive services without any cost sharing requirements. In short, the employees would not share in the cost of covering the contraception but the burden of said cost would fall entirely to the employer. In this case, a Christian-owned group of businesses. Finally, corporations are people under the law. They always have been. They were people under the law in England before America was America. The Dictionary Act (look it up) defines person to include a corporation. Remember when Mitt Romney said corporations are people too and everybody got all pissy about it? Yeah, those people-not so bright. Finally, I read the dissent and although eloquent, the arguments are not persuasive because they (the dissenters) are attempting to argue that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesnt protect religious freedom. Thats a hard argument to make. The decision is very narrow in its scope and I dont think it is quite cause for jubilation amongst religious Americans and I dont think its cause for outrage amongst feminists. If you dont like the RFRA (which Bill Clinton signed into law in an era where it wasnt necessary to hate religious people and be a Democrat at the same time), then lobby for its repeal. What liberals might want to ask in response to this decision is why did the government (if it truly wanted to protect contraceptive rights) pawn the cost and maintenance of said plans on private citizens and/or corporations? The answer (I think) is that they didnt care enough about female voters to incur the political wrath of state-sponsored contraception.
Posted on: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 02:09:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015