Photo by: Will Gentry
As the court hearing for the Hobby Lobby case draws closer, Democratic senators have intervened, trying to urge Supreme Court justices to deny Affordable Care Act contraceptive exemptions to religious for-profit corporations.
“What’s at stake in this case before the Supreme Court is whether a CEO’s personal beliefs can trump a woman’s right to access free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act,” U.S. Sen. Patty Murray said in a prepared remark to Fox News.
Republicans held a brief of their own where Sen. David Vitter shot back at Democrat statements.
“The ability to practice the faith we choose is one of our great constitutional rights,” Vitter said in the Republican filed court brief. “The Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate stomps on that right.”
With controversy surrounding this case on both sides, many arguments play at how much of a business owner’s morals should influence the company.
“I actually find it interesting that she said that a CEO’s personal religious convictions should not trump a right to free or low-cost contraceptives,” sophomore Benjamin Hartman said. “I would say there’s no such thing as a profession that is amoral. Everybody has his or her own convictions and morals that come into play, sometimes more so, sometimes less depending on the job. I believe that a CEO has a right to do their best to guide their company according to what principles they think are best.”
While Hartman sides more with the Republican stance, sophomore Rose Schaefer favors the general Democratic view.
“I agree with the Democrats,” Schaefer said. “I understand exemptions for religious nonprofits because when you sign up to work with a religious nonprofit, you’re agreeing to what their creed says, to what they’re putting out there and you’re saying you want to work for that. But the women working for Hobby Lobby, for example, aren’t signing up for a Christian organization, they’re signing up for a job. I don’t think you can have the religious beliefs of one man put on thousands of women just because he’s decided that’s what he believes.”
The Supreme Court will hear the combined arguments for the Hobby Lobby case, which won the lower-court ruling, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., which lost their lower-court ruling in late March.
“I honestly think the Supreme Court will probably uphold the ObamaCare position,” Hartman said. “I do believe that it is an attack on religious freedom, and also I do think this is more of a right to life issue for the unborn and less about medical procedures. So I would like to see them shoot them down, but I’m very hesitant to say that they will do so.”
While Schaefer agrees with the potential outcome, she has different beliefs as to why the court should vote in favor of the Conestoga ruling. By a company enforcing what they see as Christian principles, that company could infringe on an employee’s differing values, she said.
“I could see it going either way, but I would like to see the court overturn the Hobby Lobby decision,” Schaefer said. “I believe it’s a Constitutional right to practice your religion and the state shouldn’t infringe on that, but it’s infringing on someone else’s right to practice their religion by enforcing them to these Christian values.”
In the Fox News article “Dem. Senators Intervene in Hobby Lobby Case, Urge Justices to Deny ObamaCare Exemption,” the key issue is whether profit-making corporations may assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision, guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose.
Schaefer believes the First Amendment is the best route for the defense to take.
“I think they have a better shot using a First Amendment defense since the Religious Freedom Act route is a pretty slippery slope,” Schaefer said. “Does a corporation really have a religion? It’s easy for us as the evangelical Christians majority, to want to defend our beliefs. But at the same time, if a Jehovah’s Witness company said they don’t want to cover blood transfusions, we would say, ‘Of course not.’”
Others, like Hartman, believe that the Religious Freedom Act is a potential defense for the Hobby Lobby supporters. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is a federal law that prevents other laws from burdening an individual’s free exercise of religion.
“If the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should apply to the Hobby Lobby case, the court will have to apply strict scrutiny,” Stephen Eck, vice president and general counsel for Oklahoma Christian University, said. “If the court applies strict scrutiny, we will have a very interesting case indeed.”
On Dec. 23, 2013, the Alliance of Freedom’s lawsuit was decided in the favor of four Christian colleges in Oklahoma, allowing these colleges to opt out of the contraceptive coverage. Although Oklahoma Christian opted out of joining these colleges in the lawsuit, the school has successfully found an alternate way to avoid certain contraceptives.
“The way the federal government enforces [the contraceptive coverage] is through the insurance company,” Eck said. “They tell the insurance companies you have to offer certain things unless you get a self-certification document saying you have a religious basis to oppose certain drugs.”
Oklahoma Christian filed one of the self-certification documents and was approved to stop the coverage of abortifacient drugs such as Mifeprex and some emergency contraceptives such as the “Plan B” morning-after pill.
“We still do cover traditional birth control,” Eck said.
The court case – which will be heard in March – won’t reach a verdict until perhaps April or May, and is expected to receive a lot of media coverage before the final outcome in about six months.
0
0
Be First to Comment