In a divisive ruling Monday, the Supreme Court has ruled that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are not required to supply female employees with birth control.
The case stems from the Affordable Care Act mandate that requires insurance plans to supply preventative services, including birth control, to their customers.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood have claimed that the federal mandate violates their religious beliefs.
Defense for the businesses comes from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a federal law which prevents laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of their religion without compelling reason.
“In this case, the Supreme Court accepted the religious freedom claim of the two companies, concluding that even though the interest in providing women with contraceptives was assumed to be a compelling governmental interest, the government has other ways that it could provide the contraceptive coverage,” said Daniel Conkle, an IU Maurer School law professor.
He said the government’s compelling reason was gender equality for women and to provide female employees with contraceptive coverage. In turn, this would enhance women’s health and give them a say in their reproductive health.
However, the ruling is limited in scope. While Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, both closely held companies, can use the RFRA as a defense, McDonald’s or Verizon would not likely attempt the same argument.
“The ruling is significant, but not open-ended,” Conkle said. “Basically, what the Supreme Court said is that it is not reaching the issue of whether a publicly traded corporation can exercise religion.”
In other words, big corporate players can’t use religion as a defense.
“What we’re dealing with is closely held companies, which in many cases are owned by family members,” Conkle said. “They’re not publicly traded. You and I can’t buy shares of Hobby Lobby.”
But while corporate giants cannot exercise religion, the case still has a significant implication for profit-making companies.
Never before has the Supreme Court ruled that a profit-making corporation can exercise religion. But it has never ruled on the contrary either.
“The Supreme Court says yes it can, at least, in circumstances that indicate you have sincere religious belief that is being practiced and advanced by the corporation.”
When Hobby Lobby was originally founded, it included a set of religious principles in its corporate documents. The owners therefore have sincere religious value.
To understand how the 5-4 vote will affect people, Kosali Simon, a health policy expert at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and a research assistant plan to quantify the impact.
“One of the outcomes we’re trying to measure is how much does a law that mandates zero co-pay affect use of contraceptives,” she said. “It expands the number of people using any contraceptive, but will it cause people to switch to a more expensive form of contraception because of the zero co-pay?”
The other outcome they said they hope to measure is how this provision will affect unattended pregnancy rates and fertility, she said.
Doing the research might prove to be difficult.
“This is a federal provision,” Simon said. “It would be easier if it were statewide, because we could use another state as a control, but we don’t have that option.”
Until Simon’s research can be done to determine the actual impact of the ruling, everyone will be issuing their own opinion.
In a blog post titled “The Real Problem with the Hobby Lobby Decision,” Sheila Suess Kennedy, a professor of law and public policy in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IU-Purdue University Indianapolis, said the decision is immensely wrongheaded.
“We could note that, thanks to the Administration’s willingness to accommodate religious paternalism, the costs of coverage didn’t even come out of the corporate pocket — the insurers paid it. How does that ‘burden’ the corporation?” She wrote. Not everyone is opposed to the Supreme Court ruling.
“I support the Hobby Lobby ruling,” Grassroots Conservative Coordinator Robert Hall said. “It’s one small step for freedom and limited government.”
