The Affordable Care Act is a beneficial act to provide our society with affordable health care which covers all of the basic medical needs of a human being. Congressman Jim Himes put it best when he declared that although a payment for these health plans might be a little heftier than the fifty dollar premiums Americans were used to paying, these plans would better insure the decline of annual emergency room care. The biggest debate however has been made over the requirement of companies including contraceptive coverage at no additional cost to their employees. According to the Green family, owners of the for-profit chain of Hobby Lobby stores, as well as the Hahn family who owns a woodworking corporation, this new requirement impedes not only their First Amendment right but violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The RFRA states “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…” (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991, Sec.3 42 USC 2000bb-1.) At the time this act was passed, the original purpose was to protect a person’s free exercise of religious practices. Now both families have brought their shared beliefs that the for-profit corporations they own and operate should also have those same rights. Because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Greens and Hahns, the ACA’s requirement to include contraceptive coverage now in fact violates the for-profit corporation’s right to religious freedom.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision, requiring closely held corporations to provide health care plans with coverage of contraceptives at no additional cost, violates federal law which protects free exercise of religious freedom. Justice Alito summarized the court’s decision as “Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations,… protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.” (“Aborted, Once More”, The Economist, Jun 30th 2014, 15:42 by C.H., New York) The court ruled in a five to four decision that corporations do in fact deserve the same religious rights it’s owners have. The decision allows Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties (as well as any other closely held corporation that feels the same) to exclude four specific types of contraception in the health care options made available to their employees. Scientifically speaking, these four types of contraception do not in fact cause a form of abortion, however due to christian beliefs the two companies believe they do in fact cause miscarriage or abortion of the fertilized egg. Because this is due to a religious belief, companies are free to exclude them from the list of covered forms of contraception on account of their constitutional right to free-exercise, stated in both the First Amendment as well as the RFRA of 1993.
In a fierce dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued she and the three other justices in disagreement believe “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.” (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, reversed and remanded.) Although the companies owners share these religious beliefs, who is to say that every employee working for said companies shares those beliefs as well? It is understandable in the dissenting justices views that a non-profit religious based company would fall under the free-exercise right, however it is non plausible that a multi-million dollar for-profit company employs workers of the same religious doctrine and only those employees that fit the bill. If this was the case, then the argument of employment discrimination would be the main focus here. Ginsburg also stated “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”(BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, reversed and remanded.) The focus of the Contraceptive Mandate was to ensure a healthier and more affordable option for women’s reproductive health, but the court’s decision has now nixed the affordable option, making it increasingly difficult for a large percent of underprivileged women to afford most of the recommended forms of contraception. Ginsburg, although clearly pro-women’s rights, took it one step further in her dissent, making the claim “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude…The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.” (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, reversed and remanded.) If this decision does in fact make it possible for a company to deny certain forms of contraception, a closely held for-profit corporation led by a Scientologist can easily exclude blood work coverage for their employees. There are so many different medical advances that every religious doctrine denies as conforming to their secular beliefs, in Ginsburg’s opinion this could make things very difficult for both the court and on a broader spectrum, the Affordable Care Act in the future.
In 1973, the case of Roe v. Wade established the illegality of abortion services directly violated the constitutional right of personal privacy. In ‘78, Congress made it clear that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was discrimination on the basis of sex. Later in 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees while excluding birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Fast forward to 2014, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act giving countless women the piece of mind that they would no longer have to make the choice between spending their last few dollars of a paycheck on contraception or food for their family. With the Court’s decision on the Contraceptive Mandate in regards to closely held for-profit corporations, our nation has successfully traveled back in time. As a sexually active young woman, I know the high cost of certain types of contraception. Luckily, I am blessed to have the financial means to cover those costs if the company I work for decides it is against their religious beliefs (beliefs I do not share) to offer contraception coverage. For thousands of others, these financial means are not available, and most of the women that fall into this category work for companies just like Hobby Lobby. These women need access to contraceptive coverage more than anyone. Our constitutional right to freedom of religion is not only to protect those who do believe in a higher power, but also those of us who do not. The colonists left England for America because of a dominant Catholic rule, everyone had to conform to the Catholic faith, and laws were enacted upon the Catholic doctrine. When the Constitution was drafted, the framers wanted to make every possible move to prevent this from happening in the great country of The United States of America. When we start making decisions on medical procedures and contraceptive care on the basis of religious beliefs, rather than scientific proof, our government is retracting its original stance on religious reform. With this in mind, I agree with the four dissenting justices wholeheartedly. In my opinion, our legislature must make decisions based on scientific evidence, not a religious belief that was created eons before science was even considered evidence. The Court’s decision, although trying to amend the violations to religious beliefs, has directly violated a woman’s right to choice, and the Green’s and Hahn’s have made it clear that they believe a woman’s boss is symbolically welcome in her bedroom.
C.Vickerman 