Image source here. (Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan, respectively)
The Supreme Court held oral arguments for Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., AKA the Hobby Lobby case, today (SCOTUS blog link). In a nutshell, the Hobby Lobby case examines whether or not the rights of employees to choose and obtain birth control trumps employers' rights to religious freedom. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers are required by law to provide their employers with health insurance that also covers the cost of contraception (a potentially burdensome cost without insurance). However, the powers-that-be at Hobby Lobby disagree with this principle. The owners of the 602-craft store chain (over 13,000 employees) are Southern Baptists and have expressed their views that certain types of birth control go against their own moral principles. Therefore, they believe Hobby Lobby should not be required these forms of birth control under its insurance plans.
According to this article from the New Yorker, the Court's three female Justices made their opinions clear during today's oral arguments. Of the first 32 questions directed at Paul Clement (Hobby Lobby's lawyer), 28 of them came from the female Justices (the article shows the full breakdown of the questions). Taking the perspective of female employees, the three female Justices each pointed out fallacies in Hobby Lobby's position. One I found particularly interesting was Sotomayor's question about employers who have religious objections to health plans that cover other basic medical procedures — blood transfusions, immunizations, medical products that include pork. The other Justices all asked powerful and thought-provoking questions, which can be read in the New Yorker article.
Some ideas to consider: Whose side are you on, Hobby Lobby's or Sotomayor's/Kagan's/Ginsburg's? Do you think the female Justices are acting in a biased manner, or do their arguments sound logical regardless of gender bias? What other cases pertaining to First Amendment rights can this be connected to? What could be some ramifications if the Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby or the other way around?
More helpful background on the case and a very amusing photo of Scalia courtesy of U.S. News and World Report here.
Listen to NPR's story on this case here.
Click here for a column by a Fox News correspondent regarding why corporations need religious freedom.
4 comments:
The forms of contraception specified by the Green family to be forms of abortion are simply, not. IUDs and morning after pills do not terminate or expel a fetus before viability, they prevent fertilization. A majority of religious people and denominations allow and support birth control in various forms. Recent polls show support close to 90% among the American populace, and the Obama administration as well as the medical community view it as an important part of public health, and thus a compelling government interest. Objectively, birth control is great with respect to economic, medical and social reasons.
While minorities like the Green family can call foul and reject paying for health insurance that covers contraception, I will be firmly in support of the contraception mandate. The gender bias, if anything, is coming from the men. They aren't the ones getting pregnant and having to deal with the medical issues from just being a woman. They have less of an incentive to look at birth control from an objective point of view. The Green family is free to not use birth control themselves, but they and other private employers should not be free to impede access for others, because like it or not their choice would place a significant obstacle in front of their employees. Just because their actions to not de jure prohibit access to contraception means nothing when it would practically restrict such access.
I agree with Kevin and I think he makes a good point about the Green family. If I work at the Hobby Lobby, I don't think I should be expected to adapt the owneres' personal views on issues relating to my body. The right to contraception that is set forth by the Affordable Care Act should overpower a company's right to religion.
I feel that Hobby Lobby does not have the right to speak on behalf of the 13,000 employees. I think that there are circumstances in which these contraceptive devices may be necessary or desirable for the employees, even if they are "against their own moral principals". I think that it is alright for the owners to be against birth controls, but I think it is unfair to restrict it to the employees. The employees should have a say and freedom to access these birth controls that are available to others. I also feel that the employees may find other ways to find contraceptive devices anyway. These alternate ways may not be as beneficial or healthy, and I think that Hobby Lobby is simply making it dangerous for those looking for contraceptive devices.
I agree with Kevin, as he puts it, "The gender bias, if anything, is coming from the men. They aren't the ones getting pregnant and having to deal with the medical issues from just being a woman."
I also found something interesting, apparently, Hobby Lobby invested in contraceptive manufacturers (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hobby-lobbys-contraception-hypocrisy). If this is true, then Hobby Lobby would be in an interesting situation.
I agree with the above comments that think that Hobby Lobby is pulling a cheap trick. Alex is right--if contraceptives are against your own personal beliefs, they can only influence your own personal life, not the lives of your employees. Furthermore, arguments saying that "If employees don't like this contraceptive ban, they should just not work at Hobby Lobby" is short-sighted and frankly missing the point of this debate. Employees shouldn't be forced to choose between having a job and having access to birth control benefits.
There is an interesting point made by many activists for birth control devices that (more or less, I'm paraphrasing) goes, "This wouldn't still be an issue if men could get pregnant." I feel that this sentiment is true.
Post a Comment