The Contraceptive Crisis: Hobby Lobby Inc v. Sebelius

       Late last week, the mid-size arts and crafts store Hobby Lobby, Inc. appeared before the 10th circuit court of appeals in Denver, Co. They stand alongside several businesses represented by the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty who oppose a mandate put into effect by the Affordable Care Act. Essentially, the new law requires businesses to provide all full-time employees with health care coverage including access to all FDA approved contraceptives. While the owners of Hobby Lobby say they would allow workers access to preventative contraceptives, they claim that emergency contraceptives, such as "the morning after pill," induce abortion and are therefore morally irreprehensible.

        Hobby Lobby was originally founded in 1972 by David Green. Claiming that the company represents a form of at-work Christian ministry, Green argues that providing his employees with emergency contraceptives would directly violate the Christian values necessary to run his business. This would, in his argument, violate not only his own religious liberty, but impede the leadership of his company. Ultimately, for Green and his followers, the consequences for funding supposed abortion would not only jeopardize their company values, but risk their immortal consciences. The video below comes from "hobbylobbycase.com," a rallying webpage developed by the Beckett Fund and Hobby Lobby, Inc. to promote their cause.

 

          From a legal standpoint, it seems clear that these "Christian" businesses face an uphill battle. For the courts to grant them an exemption from the mandate, they would have to recognize Hobby Lobby et. al. as having a religious belief system. This would require the courts to create a qualified distinction between "religious" and "secular" for-profit industries. This distinction would necessarily stand apart from religious institutions, such as places of worship. Keeping in mind that less than 10% of Americans are atheists, it's reasonable that thousands of small businesses would apply for such a status to argue for whatever preferential treatment available. Moreover, if businesses with this "religious tenor" gained the right to allow or deny forms of medical care based on personal ideology, new advances in medical care would constantly succumb to the whims of radical ethical debate outside of the FDA. Employees of these businesses would either opt for personal insurance or risk being denied cutting-edge medicines. The largest risk in this scenario would be widening an already pronounced means-based healthcare gap. Low-earning employees of small businesses would not have the same ability to access comprehensive medical coverage as high-earning employees of large corporations.

 

           Or, the court could rule that the mandate itself is unconstitutional. However, this would mean that employers are not required to provide the highest level of health care coverage for their full-time employees. This could mean a huge setback in healthcare reform. Workers would be at the mercy of each individual corporation's healthcare standard, rather than a national standard. Once again, contributing to the means-based health-care gap and allowing businesses to choose the healthcare standard their workers are paying into. For these reasons, I believe the court system will uphold the legality of the Affordable Care Act's mandate.



 

            So perhaps their argument won't succeed in a legal setting. But, an ethical question still remains: should businesses possess the right to abstain practicing something that violates their moral code? Let's assume for a moment that Hobby Lobby is undeniably a Christian business. If the business believes that to provide abortion coverage for employees would be immoral, is it ethical for the government to make them? This deeply complex issue cannot be answered simply. To say "yes" would mean that the federal government may enforce business practices that to a degree infringe on owner's freedom of practice, at least in their understanding. To say "no" would imply that business owners have the right to practice a sort of religious imperialism, whereby they impose their values on employees. Personally, I have always been an advocate of religious freedom. However, in this case I don't believe that corporations are capable of religious expression. Ultimately, it's not the owners themselves paying for worker's medical coverage; rather, it's the dual support of the business itself and full-time employees. To grant a business a religious identity seems just as dangerous as granting government the status of a religious institution.