Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court

On June 30, 2014, the U. S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on the case “Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services Et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al.” in regards to whether private companies can be forced under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to provide all forms of birth control when ownership has a religious objection.  In a 5-4 ruling, the Court ruled that closely held for-profit corporations, which is defined as 50% or more of the shares being held by 5 or less individuals has rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). 

There is a lot of misinformation and political spin in the news about this ruling, so I will clarify some points based on the actual ruling and clear up some incorrect facts around what Hobby Lobby does and does not want to provide as part of their health care coverage.  I think rather than read all the sensationalist media reports with false or misleading information coming out on both sides of the debate, Americans should actually read the Court’s ruling on the case and interpret it for themselves.  I will also provide my opinion on this subject but I will not debate the validity of Hobby Lobby’s claims that these methods of birth control are equivalent to abortion.  The owners of Hobby Lobby have the same right as everyone else to wrestle with the questions of the beginnings of life and their opinions and beliefs on the subject are no less valid than anyone else’s.  The court addresses this directly and says that “it is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable”. 

At issue here is the requirement under the ACA that all nonexempt employers are required to provide coverage for 20 contraceptive methods approved by the FDA.  Many religious affiliated non-profit groups such as churches and hospitals, are opposed to only 4 of the 20 required contraceptive methods because these methods prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Religious non-profit organizations have already been exempted from this mandate by HHS.  The exemption requires the insurance company to exclude coverage for these 4 contraceptive methods from the employer’s plan; however the insurance company must provide the plan participants with separate payments for these services without burdening the employer or its insured employees with these costs.  Hobby Lobby has the same objections to these 4 methods of birth control, so they petitioned the court to be exempt as well.   Many in the media would like people to believe that Hobby Lobby does not want to provide coverage for any method of birth control, but that is patently false.  Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan provides coverage for 16 of the 20 methods, so access to birth control is widely available to their female employees. 

The court said that the RFRA was intended to provide very broad protection for religious liberty.  One of the arguments made against this ruling is that the RFRA should not cover corporations as “persons”.   However, I believe the Court correctly states that since prior rulings under the RFRA have allowed non-profit corporations protections under the RFRA that it is inconceivable that an individual and a non-profit corporation meet the definition of “person” but a for-profit corporation does not.  Also, given that HHS has already exempted religious non-profit organizations from this requirement and accepted alternative arrangements, the government cannot now claim that this accommodation is unacceptable if applied to a for-profit corporation.  

My opinion on this issue goes far beyond potential religious objections to certain contraceptives.  I think we as a country need to actually have a focused debate on whether health insurance is a right or a benefit.  Too many people have quickly made a decision one way or the other without really stopping to consider the Constitutional issues.  This is not the time or place to have that debate; however in my opinion I believe our current system leans towards its being a benefit.  Medicare and Medicaid aside, the vast majority of people in this country receive health care coverage as a benefit provided by their employer.  Given that health insurance is considered part of the benefits package of any job, I believe that all companies have the freedom to choose what type of health care coverage they can afford and would like to provide to their employees.  If companies want to choose their coverage partially based on their religious beliefs, that is their right.  If companies want to choose their coverage based on attracting and retaining the best talent, then by all means they should be able to offer the highest quality insurance available.  If some companies are unable to afford more expensive coverage and can only provide catastrophic insurance policies, that should be within their rights as well.  As American citizens, no one tells us where we have to work.  I am not forced to stay at a job if I don’t like their health care policy.  I’m free to go work for a company that has an insurance policy that works better for me and my family.  Many, many Americans have made this choice over the years.   Ultimately that is part of competition in the marketplace.  Just like salary and bonus and 401k match programs, the company health care plan is one way for companies to distinguish themselves and attempt to attract and retain talent.  Companies that offer high quality health care plans will almost always be able to hire and retain staff better than companies that offer lower quality insurance.