For-Profit Businesses Exempt from Contraceptive Mandate
By Amber Reumont
On Monday, June 30th, the five conservative Supreme Court justices sided with Hobby Lobby, exempting them from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. The ruling states that businesses such as Hobby Lobby, which are family owned, cannot be forced to provide employees with contraceptive coverage if it violates the owners’ religious beliefs. The court’s decision cites the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” The owners of Hobby Lobby, who are Evangelical Christians, specifically objected to four contraceptives covered by the mandate, two forms of Intrauterine Devices and two forms of the morning after pill, because they believe such medications cause abortion. Therefore, the owners of Hobby Lobby felt that providing such coverage impedes their ability to practice their religion.
Hobby Lobby argued that providing insurance coverage of the specified contraceptives violates their religious beliefs because such contraceptives facilitate abortion. A particularly troubling facet of the court’s decision is its acceptance of Hobby Lobby’s argument that IUDs and the morning after pill are abortifacients, for the court’s decision ignores established science surrounding emergency contraception. Both IUDs and the morning after pill are able to prevent fertilization, thereby preventing pregnancy. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists clearly states, “Emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy.” Hobby Lobby included IUDs because they can be used as emergency contraception as well, though it is very rare because most doctors will not implant an IUD if a woman is already pregnant.
The decision handed down by the Supreme Court specifically exempts ‘closely held’ companies from providing contraceptives, prompting questions about the definition of closely held. The Wall Street Journal explains that Hobby Lobby qualifies as a closely held company because, “they are owned and controlled by members of a single family.” According to the IRS however, closely held does not necessarily mean family owned. A business in which a small group—five or less—owns the majority of shares qualifies as a closely held business; as a result, 90 percent of US companies are considered closely held. Although the court’s decision is meant to protect the religious rights of the small groups who power family owned businesses, it jeopardizes the health and rights of a massive number of women, for Hobby Lobby employs nearly 30,000 people.
Justice Samuel Alito penned the majority opinion, which was decided upon by the five conservative male justices. The majority states that the religious freedom of business owners is heavily oppressed in the case of the specified contraceptive coverage, thereby affording religious freedom rights to for-profit corporations. The court concluded that if the religious faith of the corporation’s leaders causes them to believe that such contraceptives are abortifacients, then the coverage of such contraception impedes their religious freedom. However, the majority ruling also pointed out that the White House could step in to provide coverage where it is now lacking, much like President Obama’s response to the exemption allowed for religious nonprofit organizations.
On the other hand, all three female justices dissented in addition to the left-leaning Stephen Breyer; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned the dissent. The minority opposed the ruling that for-profit organizations are entitled to religious freedom, declaring, “Workers who sustain the operations of those [for-profit] corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.” Therefore, such a sweeping decision impedes the employees’ ability to exercise their own religious freedom, as they must tailor their medical choices to their employers’ beliefs. Furthermore, the majority asserts their ruling will not lead to a slippery slope phenomenon as suggested by Ginsburg, and access to other forms of healthcare will not be harmed. However, such a statement privileges the rights of Christians over the religious beliefs of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Scientologists whose beliefs oppose certain medical procedures and medications. Lastly, the minority argues that failures to provide birth control access endanger the health and autonomy of women. IUDs, in particular, are the most effective form of birth control available, yet they are also extremely costly. Contraception is a necessary aspect of women’s rights because it allows for autonomy within family and financial planning, which is often essential to career success.
Attempting to quell concerns regarding the possibility of a slippery slope, the majority kept their initial decision narrow by specifying the exemption applies only to closely held businesses with a religious objection to the contraceptive mandate. However, many fear that Ginsburg’s apprehension is valid because the court decided almost immediately to broaden the ruling to include all forms of birth control as well as the four specifically mentioned in the Hobby Lobby lawsuit. In addition to Hobby Lobby, 71 other companies fought back against the mandate in court, and it is likely that many more will refuse contraceptive coverage as a result. Though the ruling is meant to apply solely to contraception, the majority has already expanded its power. Many have pointed out that the religious freedom awarded to for-profit corporations could have extensive fallout, reaching much further than women’s healthcare. Most importantly, religious organizations now have a ruling upon which they can base claims of religious freedom to exempt themselves from anti-discrimination laws. Only time will tell, but experts ensure that many more lawsuits are on the horizon.