My legal mind really enjoyed reading the Hobby Lobby case today. Here are 8 keys to understanding the ruling, it actually makes a ton of sense.
1. Hobby Lobby already provided 16 of the 20 contraceptives mandated by the Affordable Care Act. They only objected to IUDs and morning after pills that may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, thereby violating their religious beliefs that life begins at conception and should be protected.
2. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was an act passed by a Democratic Congress in 1993 (and signed by Clinton) that reiterated religious protection of all "persons" by requiring that any law, even if applying to the general public, must not "substantially burden" one's religious convictions without being for a "compelling government interest" and using the "least restrictive means."
3. A "corporation" is any formal and legal association of people for any number of reasons. There are religious "corporations" known as churches or temples, nonprofit "corporations" with any number of purposes to benefit the general public, and for-profit "corporations." The only difference between a for profit corporation and nonprofit is that the profits can be spent however the owners please, including on politics or themselves.
4. A "person" in modern corporate law, case law, and The Dictionary Act (2012-passed by a Democratic Senate and signed by Obama) extends to any corporation, including religious, nonprofit, or for-profit. Without this legal fiction, corporations would be unable to make contracts, have patents, or enjoy any other Constitutional rights that individuals enjoy. Given the previous definition of corporation, it is a good thing that groups of individuals would enjoy the same rights as isolated individuals. To say, for example, that you can express your political beliefs by yourself but the minute you get together with others you can't runs directly in the face of the right to assembly. We treat the group like an individual in order to protect the individuals in the group.
5. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided religious exceptions to providing contraception to religious and non-profit corporations. Apparently, the government thought that the "compelling government interest" of providing contraception to women did not outweigh the "substantial burden" that the mandate placed on those corporation's religious convictions. Therefore, they provided another, "least restrictive means" to provide the women those contraceptives through the insurance carrier taking on the minor cost, should the women request those individual excepted contraceptives. Let me iterate, women employees can still get those contraceptives payed for if they want them. The excepted companies simply do not have to violate their religious conscience by paying for them. This was built into the original law by Congress.
6. There is no reasonable distinction found in RFRA, corporate case law, the Dictionary Act, or elsewhere between nonprofit and for-profit corporations for the purpose of excepting one but not the other. Both are equally contained in the legal definition of "person" and, under RFRA, would be protected by the same strict scrutiny of religious protection. There are differences certainly, but none that are relevant for religious protection. In their decision, the Court simply finds that the substantial burden of this law is equally placed on both kinds of corporations and that, in the same way the extension was given to nonprofit and religious corporations, the least restrictive means of implementing this law without violating religious conviction would be to extend the same exception to for-profit corporations.
7. There is no slippery slope. The Court very carefully and explicitly explains that this ruling does not extend to business owners denying their employers blood transfusions, vaccinations, or employment based on race based on "religious conviction." Many of those issues have already been settled in court and vary from this case for many important reasons. This decision is very narrowly tailored to this particular case of the contraception mandate and for closely held (not massive) corporations with sincerely held (not phony) religious convictions.
8. If anything, the response to this ruling should make us very concerned about the way progressives view freedom and government. They are more concerned about a "slippery slope of freedom" in which a couple dozen employees may have to find better employment than a "slippery slope of tyranny" in which a growing central government wants to tell everyone what to do, regardless of their religious beliefs. Very few genocides have occurred from women getting their contraception through their insurance rather than employer, more than a few have occurred from out of control central government.
Despite what some may say about a "loss for women," there is no actual loss, as I showed. It's all rhetoric designed to rally people against each other. If you can make the mob angry, they just might vote for you. If we step back from the politics and look at the principles, however, today is a victory for freedom and religious conviction. In an age when Christians are increasingly told to keep their beliefs to themselves and their convictions have no place for the public square, the Supreme Court affirmed that religious belief cannot be isolated into one's mind or Sunday mornings, but is a vibrant and active foundation for one's life that must be protected, despite the waves of cultural pressure.
Seth
1. Hobby Lobby already provided 16 of the 20 contraceptives mandated by the Affordable Care Act. They only objected to IUDs and morning after pills that may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, thereby violating their religious beliefs that life begins at conception and should be protected.
2. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was an act passed by a Democratic Congress in 1993 (and signed by Clinton) that reiterated religious protection of all "persons" by requiring that any law, even if applying to the general public, must not "substantially burden" one's religious convictions without being for a "compelling government interest" and using the "least restrictive means."
3. A "corporation" is any formal and legal association of people for any number of reasons. There are religious "corporations" known as churches or temples, nonprofit "corporations" with any number of purposes to benefit the general public, and for-profit "corporations." The only difference between a for profit corporation and nonprofit is that the profits can be spent however the owners please, including on politics or themselves.
4. A "person" in modern corporate law, case law, and The Dictionary Act (2012-passed by a Democratic Senate and signed by Obama) extends to any corporation, including religious, nonprofit, or for-profit. Without this legal fiction, corporations would be unable to make contracts, have patents, or enjoy any other Constitutional rights that individuals enjoy. Given the previous definition of corporation, it is a good thing that groups of individuals would enjoy the same rights as isolated individuals. To say, for example, that you can express your political beliefs by yourself but the minute you get together with others you can't runs directly in the face of the right to assembly. We treat the group like an individual in order to protect the individuals in the group.
5. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided religious exceptions to providing contraception to religious and non-profit corporations. Apparently, the government thought that the "compelling government interest" of providing contraception to women did not outweigh the "substantial burden" that the mandate placed on those corporation's religious convictions. Therefore, they provided another, "least restrictive means" to provide the women those contraceptives through the insurance carrier taking on the minor cost, should the women request those individual excepted contraceptives. Let me iterate, women employees can still get those contraceptives payed for if they want them. The excepted companies simply do not have to violate their religious conscience by paying for them. This was built into the original law by Congress.
6. There is no reasonable distinction found in RFRA, corporate case law, the Dictionary Act, or elsewhere between nonprofit and for-profit corporations for the purpose of excepting one but not the other. Both are equally contained in the legal definition of "person" and, under RFRA, would be protected by the same strict scrutiny of religious protection. There are differences certainly, but none that are relevant for religious protection. In their decision, the Court simply finds that the substantial burden of this law is equally placed on both kinds of corporations and that, in the same way the extension was given to nonprofit and religious corporations, the least restrictive means of implementing this law without violating religious conviction would be to extend the same exception to for-profit corporations.
7. There is no slippery slope. The Court very carefully and explicitly explains that this ruling does not extend to business owners denying their employers blood transfusions, vaccinations, or employment based on race based on "religious conviction." Many of those issues have already been settled in court and vary from this case for many important reasons. This decision is very narrowly tailored to this particular case of the contraception mandate and for closely held (not massive) corporations with sincerely held (not phony) religious convictions.
8. If anything, the response to this ruling should make us very concerned about the way progressives view freedom and government. They are more concerned about a "slippery slope of freedom" in which a couple dozen employees may have to find better employment than a "slippery slope of tyranny" in which a growing central government wants to tell everyone what to do, regardless of their religious beliefs. Very few genocides have occurred from women getting their contraception through their insurance rather than employer, more than a few have occurred from out of control central government.
Despite what some may say about a "loss for women," there is no actual loss, as I showed. It's all rhetoric designed to rally people against each other. If you can make the mob angry, they just might vote for you. If we step back from the politics and look at the principles, however, today is a victory for freedom and religious conviction. In an age when Christians are increasingly told to keep their beliefs to themselves and their convictions have no place for the public square, the Supreme Court affirmed that religious belief cannot be isolated into one's mind or Sunday mornings, but is a vibrant and active foundation for one's life that must be protected, despite the waves of cultural pressure.
Seth
Comments
Post a Comment