The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, Inc. is viewed by some religious conservatives as a decision in favor of religious freedom. However, most constitutional law scholars view the "hidden payload" of this decision as a set-back for religious freedom.
Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
"The decision “demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a dissent that was mostly joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotmayor.”...In her dissent, Ginsburg said court precedent and common wisdom suggest “the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.” (Quote from Forbes Magazine editorial by Daniel Fisher published 6/30/2014: Supreme Court Holds Congress To Its Word in Hobby Lobby Decision.)
On the Hobby Lobby FaceBook page, several people have pointed out that Hobby Lobby, Inc. has substantial investments in the manufacturer of the morning after pill and i.u.d. which the corporation claims covering on their employee health insurance under the Affordable Care Act infringes on their owners religious beliefs. The Company's 401K plan also invests in two insurance companies which cover surgical abortions.
The inconsistencies in the business investment practices of the Greene family and their business (Hobby Lobby, Inc.) cause many to doubt whether the family truly has as strong objections to use of the devices they refuse to cover on their employee health policy as is claimed in their Supreme Court law suit.
A national call to boycott Hobby Lobby is attracting substantial participation from women and men who object to the imposition of the owners religious beliefs on the personal health and family planning choices of their employees. Those who truly believe that life begins at conception and use of these means of family planning is wrong should join in the boycott until Hobby Lobby divests from stock holdings which manufacture or provide the very services they claim violates their religious beliefs to offer in their employee health plan.
Hobby Lobby invests in nine funds which involve three quarters of Hobby Lobby's 401(k) assets: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, manufactures Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD; Actavis, manufactures a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella; Pfizer,manufactures Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions and Bayer manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions. Forest Laboratories, manufacturer of Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions, is also in the Hobby Lobby investment portfolio. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby portfolio invests in Aetna and Humana, and both of these health insurance companies cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of their insurance plans.
Numerous supporters of Hobby Lobby point out that they cover some birth control and only exclude 4. The company investing in the manufacturer or insurance plans which provide these four, while refusing to allow their employees affordable access to them through the company health plan, indicates to this author that the family's objection to them is lame and less than sincere.
People of faith who truly believe that these forms of contraception are contrary to their religious beliefs should join in the boycott until they divest of these stocks. Even then, this decision still provides substantial problems for people of faith.
Whenever anyone at the top of the "food chain" can impose their "religious practices and beliefs" on their employees or their subordinates, we have a serious threat to religious freedom in this country. Our nation was founded on the premise of separation of church and state to allow individuals to select and practice their religion without interference from government or other powerful interest in the community. This decision is a serious set-back for citizens. It allows a few to impose their preference on many. It allows the more affluent to use its financial clout (through costly litigation or threat to employees earnings and employees benefits) on those of lesser economic standing.
Instead of being a decision which expands or protects religious freedom, I see it as a "wolf in lambs clothing" which truly infringes upon, and chips away, at the constitutional protections of religious freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment