Health Care

More | | | Editor

Supreme Court struggles with companies' religious objections to law's birth control coverage

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:12 PM
Last updated 9:09 PM
  • Follow Business

WASHINGTON — Seemingly divided, the Supreme Court struggled Tuesday with the question of whether companies have religious rights, a case challenging President Obama’s health overhaul and its guarantee of birth control in employees’ preventive care plans.

Margot Riphagen, of New Orleans, wears a birth control pills costume as she protests in front of the Supreme Court. The court heard oral arguments against the requirement that businesses provide female employees with health care plans that include birth control.   CHARLES DHARAPAK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
CHARLES DHARAPAK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Margot Riphagen, of New Orleans, wears a birth control pills costume as she protests in front of the Supreme Court. The court heard oral arguments against the requirement that businesses provide female employees with health care plans that include birth control.

Peppering attorneys with questions in a 90-minute argument, the justices weighed the rights of for-profit companies against the rights of female employees. The discussion ranged to abortion, too, and even whether a female worker could be forced to wear an all-covering burka.

The outcome could turn on the views of Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote, as his colleagues appeared otherwise to divide along liberal and conservative lines.

As the court heard the challenge brought by the Hobby Lobby chain of stores and others, demonstrators on both sides of the issue chanted outside in an early spring snow.

The justices upheld the overall healthcare law two years ago in a 5-4 ruling in which Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote in favor of Obama’s signature domestic legislation.

The latest case focuses on a sliver of the law dealing with preventive services, including contraception, that must be offered in a company’s plan at no extra charge.

The family-owned companies that are challenging the provision provide health insurance to their employees but object to covering certain methods of birth control that they say can work after conception, in violation of their religious beliefs.

The justices have never declared that for-profit corporations, as opposed to individuals, can hold religious beliefs. The companies in this case, and their backers, argue that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses.

Among the groups opposing the administration is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. As it happens, Obama is to meet this week with Pope Francis.

The Obama administration says it’s not just about birth control, that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the businesses also could undermine laws governing immunizations, Social Security taxes and minimum wages.

One key issue before the justices is whether profit-making corporations may assert religious beliefs under the 1993 religious freedom law or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose.

The court could skirt that issue by finding that the individuals who own the businesses have the right to object. But the justices still would have to decide whether the birth control requirement impinges on religious freedom, and if so, whether the government makes a persuasive case that the policy is important and has been put in place in the least objectionable way possible.

The three women on the court, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, repeatedly questioned Paul Clement, representing the businesses, whether blood transfusions, vaccinations and laws against sex discrimination would be subject to the same religious objections if the court ruled for his clients.

“Everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform,” Kagan said.

Clement acknowledged that courts would have to decide on a case-by-case basis, but he said only the kind of family-owned companies he represented would make such claims, not large, multinational corporations. “That’s something that’s not going to happen in the real world,” Clement said.

Roberts at one point suggested that the court could limit its ruling to just such companies.

Kennedy showed some interest in the argument that the companies could simply decide not to offer any health insurance to their workers and instead pay a tax of $2,000 per employee. That route might allow the court to sidestep some thorny questions in the case.

Clement objected that businesses would find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in a situation where other employers were offering insurance.

But when Kennedy asked Clement to assume that the company would come out the same financially, Clement acknowledged that the government might have a strong case.

Conservative justices pressed Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. over the administration’s argument that for-profit corporations have no claim to religious expression. “If you say they can’t even get their day in court, you’re saying something pretty, pretty strong,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

Some of the nearly 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives object to paying for all forms of birth control. But the companies involved in this case are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized.

The largest company among them is Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., an Oklahoma City-based chain of more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states with more than 15,000 fulltime employees. The company is owned by the Green family, evangelical Christians who say they run their business on biblical principles. The Greens also own the Mardel chain of Christian bookstores.

The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa. The business is owned by the Hahns, a family of Mennonite Christians, and employs 950 people in making wood cabinets.

Members of both families were at the court Tuesday.

The justices made a couple of humorous references to their epic consideration of the healthcare law in 2012, which also pitted Clement against Verrilli.

When Clement persisted in calling the $2,000-per-employee tax a penalty, Sotomayor jumped in to insist that it’s a tax.

“She’s right about that,” Roberts said, recalling his opinion upholding the law’s centerpiece that individuals must be insured or pay a tax.

A decision is expected by late June.

Comments (7) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
OJP
6971
Points
OJP 03/25/14 - 07:18 pm
2
0
It will be very damaging to liberty if Hobby Lobby wins.

As suggested in the article, a Muslim company in Augusta could force Christian female employees to wear burkas, or Christian males to grow beards. A Mormon company could ban coffee. A Jewish company could require all food in the building to be kosher. And there is not true freedom to contact between employers and employees. Employers hold most of the cards (especially when unemployment is high).

This stands religious liberty on its head and turns it into religious tyranny, sanctioned by the federal government and enforced by employers.

corgimom
34620
Points
corgimom 03/25/14 - 09:17 pm
2
1
You know, Jehovah's Witnesses

You know, Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions.

So if a Jehovah's Witness owned a business, does that mean that they can say that they refuse to pay for an employee's blood transfusion if they need one? What if an employee, or their wife or children, is a hemophiliac, or has other kinds of blood disorders?

The Catholic Church is also against IVF, saying that it's evil. Do they get to refuse to pay for a couple's infertility treatments?

Would a Muslim employer ban all employees from bringing pork or bacon onto their premises?

corgimom
34620
Points
corgimom 03/25/14 - 09:19 pm
0
1
"Clement acknowledged that

"Clement acknowledged that courts would have to decide on a case-by-case basis, but he said only the kind of family-owned companies he represented would make such claims, not large, multinational corporations. “That’s something that’s not going to happen in the real world,” Clement said."

How does he know that?

scoobynews
3896
Points
scoobynews 03/26/14 - 04:34 pm
5
0
Here is a thought.

Don't apply to a business like Hobby Lobby and this won't be an issue. They have never hid what they believe and I personally am tired of people with beliefs being attacked by what others think is not "right". I don't like having a lot of today's culture shoved down my throat on tv so what do I do I simply turn the channel. We have choices so why force people to make choices that go against what they believe. Your choice is to not work for them it's that simple.

Young Fred
18262
Points
Young Fred 03/26/14 - 05:49 am
1
0
BS, bs, bbss

The way this argument has been presented, and by the comments above, just goes to show the power of suggestion, and how certain people jump to conclusions without really, I Mean Really thinking.

This IS NOT an argument about contraception, THIS IS an argument about abortion. Don't really care what your opinion is - the fact is - the morning after pill is abortion - by definition!.

I'm not trying to argue the positives or negatives of this pill, just trying to inject a little reality into the conversation.

I heard the arguments from certain "advocates" plastered all over the airwaves.

In my best Southern California accent: "This is about contraceptionnn" (no it's not, you've been fooled, very easily I might add). It's about womennn's rights! ad nauseum....
No! it is not. It is about the right of PEOPLE being able to follow their beliefs! IF YOU believe OTHER people should pay for your indiscretions, then go work for Starbucks or whoever!

Some will be ticked off by my statements, I challenge them to debate me on the facts! Unlike the media blitz on the airwaves - I won't automatically "give" certain ridiculous arguments plastered over the parroting news.

dickworth1
954
Points
dickworth1 03/26/14 - 07:02 am
0
0
Solution for democrats and liberals
Unpublished

All companies offer insurance and benefits to entice good employees to work for them, but if the company has no rights in what is covered under their policy, then do away with all medical insurance, pay the fine the government demands and save millions for the rich stock holders and the employees can join obamacare, solution solved!

lovingthesouth72
1378
Points
lovingthesouth72 03/26/14 - 09:19 am
2
0
Yours yours yours

Since it's YOUR body, and it's YOUR choice then YOU should pay for YOUR birth control when YOU decide to spread YOUR legs. It's that simple.

scoobynews
3896
Points
scoobynews 03/26/14 - 04:38 pm
0
0
I personally do not believe

I personally do not believe in abortion. Yet the pro-choice crowd wants it paid for through insurance. Like I said if you choose to work for a pro-life supporting company then what do you expect. They are just going to magically change their minds and beliefs.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs