Hobby Lobby and the Supremes
Jul 6th, 2014 by Kimberly
Maintaining their track record of 88%, corporations won a victory this week in the Supreme Court. Shocking, I know. Who knew they lost 12% of the time?
This week’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby established that corporations may deny certain kinds of contraceptives to women, if the corporation believes those items go against its principles. The Supreme Court of the United States made it clear that they are allowed to make this determination based on the owners’ “sincere religious beliefs,” to quote Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion for the majority.
It’s a fascinating belief this corporation has. The owners of Hobby Lobby refuse to cover certain methods of birth control as part of the corporate health care package, because the company believes that the intrauterine device (IUD) and the “morning-after pill” (marketed as Plan B or Ella) cause the destruction of fertilized eggs, making these abortifacients, and thus against their religion.
In point of fact, morning-after pills do nothing to fertilized eggs. They work the same way most other birth control does, by preventing the egg from attaining fertilization in the first place. So do the majority of IUDs used today. (Both the links above explain the science, or you can find the another link here.) But like fairies, lies only need people to believe in order to survive.
The funniest part of this sincere religious belief? It apparently applies only to money that Hobby Lobby spends, not money it makes. Their retirement accounts have investments in companies that make the very birth control products they so despise. In addition, they import much of their inventory from China, a country that has become synonymous with a mandatory one-child-per-couple policy, and is known to force women to have abortions in order to align with that edict. According to an article in the Financial Times, the total comes to some 330 million abortions in the last forty years. The article maintains that 403 million Chinese women have had IUD implants, frequently not by choice.
People have questioned Hobby Lobby about the importation of goods from China. I can’t find a statement from Hobby Lobby about the association. John Stonestreet on the blog Christianpost.com maintains that people have “condemned Hobby Lobby without knowledge of how they do business in China, including their efforts to monitor quality control and worker conditions.”
According to an article in the Huffington Post, “Hobby Lobby remains quiet about its dealings in China. The company did not respond to a request for a list of Chinese factories it does business with, and did not provide information about what percentage of its merchandise comes from China.” So, the company gave the public no way to gauge whether its business policies meet its allegations of Christian practice.
I don’t know the truth about Hobby Lobby’s business with Chinese companies, despite researching it as best I could. But the overall impression I get is that they feel there is a difference between dealing with the Chinese government and approving of these policies, and doing business with specific companies in China. They could be right about that. Perhaps there’s information in the details that I don’t know.
But here’s the thing – couldn’t you make that same argument about each and every one of their employees and their choices about medical options, including birth control? The company has proven they haven’t found out the easily available facts about most IUDs and morning-after pills. It stands to reason that they haven’t gone to the greater length of questioning each and every one of their workers to find out why they make the choices that they do.
Basically, I’m left with the impression that Hobby Lobby will stand on one-size-fits-all principle when it comes to spending money, but chooses to see moral nuances when making it.
I understand that people have different religious beliefs, and we’re all entitled to those – for our own lives. This decision goes beyond that. It interferes in people’s ability to decide what’s best for their own health care. I have to wonder how far this goes. Consider these scenarios:
– A man tries to put his wife on his health care plan. His company, owned by strict Catholics, refuses, because this is his second marriage and they don’t believe in divorce, so they consider his marriage invalid.
– A woman wants to get her daughter vaccinated against human papillomavirus. Her employer, a company with a majority of socially conservative Christian owners, ascribes to James Dobson’s teaching that vaccination against sexually transmitted diseases encourages promiscuity in young people. Payment for vaccination is refused.
– An employee experiences massive bleeding and needs a transfusion. The devout Jehovah’s Witness employer denies coverage, because of the church’s teachings that receiving blood violates scripture.
Notice that I haven’t even entered the territory of prohibitions by a Moslem or Buddhist or Hindu company, probably because I have the sneaking suspicion that the Supreme Court would never have heard their cases in the first place.
Think these examples are insane? Extreme? A month ago, I would have said the same thing about a company being able to decide what kind of birth control is covered on my health care plan. Oh, and just as an aside, companies have already filed under this decision for the right to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, in opposition to President Obama’s executive order for federal contractors. I have a feeling the fallout from this decision has only begun.
Religious freedom is a wonderful thing – for individuals. It should be protected. It should not be granted to corporations, because corporations are not people. They don’t have hearts or souls or beliefs. They are made up of people who have all those things, and who, when questioned, will admit that their beliefs are not exactly in accord with anyone else’s – maybe not even their own from last year. Each person has the right to make their own moral choices, especially when it comes to something like the health care plan that is not a benevolent gift from their employer, but a part of their professional compensation package.
Of course, maybe I should applaud the Supreme Court for this decision. If it’s the final push our country needs to separate employment from health care, like the rest of the civilized world, this horrible week just might be worth it.
Um… is it okay to disagree with you?
As I grow older, I become more and more conservative in that I want government to be less in my life. If I had a small business and I offered medical care, why can’t I choose what I want to cover? So If ultimately I have to flip the bill, why can’t I decide what I want to cover? This is a BENEFIT the company offers to the employee and the EMPLOYER has to PAY for it. I can easily overlook double standards when it comes to monthly costs because when you run a small business you unfortunately have no choice but to budget (conservatively) month to month.
Check out http://georgiarealtysales.com/202water.htm . YOU COULD LIVE HERE. YOU COULD AFFORD IT. Yet if this was a Bed & Breakfast Inn and you had to pay $225 more in insurance, you might go under simply because there is a mandate that the health insurance you offer covers Viagra.
My point is… before you get to prejudices about religion or fairness, understand the system is already biased and discriminates medical condition (sex, fat, fungus infected, sexual ability, age, existing health). If you don’t think that’s true, then I admonish you to ask your medical insurance for a pre-authorization for lapband, Lamisil, testosterone (or estrogen), Viagra (or flibanserin), Lexapro, any cholesterol drug, any pain killer, etc. It surprises some to learn that some insurance companies REQUIRE non-mastectomy procedures for high risk women before they cover mastectomy. How awful is that? You endure 1-4 months medical procedures so you can qualify what your doctor recommended in the first place? I 100% agree with you. I just want to point out that I don’t believe this is the cause to jump on…. yet. There is a lot more fundamental stupidity we have to reconcile.
I’ve typed a lot more than I expected. I hope it makes sense.
I agree with you 100% that corporations are not people in any way shape, or form, and that to grant them rights and privileges which have to do with human beings is fundamentally and irreparably flawed. I also think you’re right about the unfairness of the results of this decision.
Mark Anthony Franco makes an interesting point, though, about insurance companies not covering all those other things. To the best of my knowledge, things like Viagra generally are covered, which is part of why birth control’s NOT being covered was always such an outrage in the public discourse. (And I’m not including inflammatory and unfounded chatter on social — or otherwise — media that lacks evidence or common sense or logic. I’m talking about actual worthwhile discussion on the matter.) And I know that colleagues of mine, using insurance offered by our employer, have had things like lapband, cholesterol drugs, and pain killers covered without any difficulty. I’m guessing the coverage simply varies according to plan and according to employer.
Great blog, as per usual Kim! I was incensed regarding this decision- to be more accurate still am. The fact that the decision was made when the whole basis for the case was so clearly a mistaken understanding of what IUD’s and morning after pills do- UGH!
*bangs head on desk*
Whole thing should have thrown out on that basis alone.
Oh, and Mark Anthony Franco? Get your own blog, bud. Spout your inane conservative BS there. You are allowed to disagree with the opinions to expressed in Kim’s blog and I am allowed to think you’re an ass and not want to read your stuff. Post it on your own site.
Of course it’s okay to disagree with me. I think the difference between your opinion and mine hits on the biggest problem here – companies see health care as a nice thing that they offer, and employees see it as a vital part of life that isn’t really offered anywhere else at any price they can afford. Companies foot part of the bill – usually not all, often not even most – but since especially in the big companies they can enroll several people at the same time, they’re eligible for quantity discounts that individuals just can’t match. I do thing it’s a burden on employers, which is just one of the reasons I’d like to see us go to a single payer system. According to the statistics, it’s cheaper for everyone and we all live healthier in the long run.
Thankfulness to my father who informed me about this webpage, this web site
is in fact remarkable.