Is this really about Obamacare (PPACA) or a backdoor entry to change how religion is dealt with in the workplace?  I think it’s the latter, and that’s why the Supreme Court will be making a very narrow ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

Most of you know the case.  Most of you had already formed your opinions.  But, I don’t think it’s that clear cut.  Basically, two companies (Hobby Lobby owned by the Green Family and Conestoga Wood Specialties owned by the Hahn family) feel that their rights are being abrogated when they are forced to provide contraceptive care to their employees.  Hobby Lobby got a preliminary ruling in the 10^th Circuit, while Conestoga lost in the 3^rd Circuit.  Those differing opinions are the primary reasons why the Supreme Court is involved.

Most Americans (89%- even 82% of those professing Catholic beliefs) have no compunction against contraception.  Moreover, PPACA did not create a single payer insurance, so Americans still typically rely upon company-provided insurance.  That makes the concept of an employer being able to obviate such critical well-care coverage troubling, indeed.  Please note we are also talking about contraception and not abortion.   Moreover, health insurance is part of the compensation package that firms offer to entice employees to join and stay with them.

Removing contraceptive coverage actually is a form of discrimination; it’s a means to insure that certain employees will never be hired by the firm.  (Conveniently, the firm deliberately excludes these folks, while it purports that the potential employee- with different beliefs and religious principles than they desire to hire- refuses to join their staff.)

(It always amazes me how folks don’t want to provide contraceptive services and then complain how many abortions occur.   The way to cut down on abortions is to provide universal contraceptive options- including those that provide their effects for 90 days or so- so the perceived need for abortion is decimated.)

And, I know that while many folks believe that companies are people, they are not.  They may have similar rights, but they are not persons.  Moreover, as I have written repeatedly, once Dr. Milton Friedman advised companies that they had no moral obligation to their employees or their communities, but only had the requirement to make a profit, it became clear that companies were amoral institutions.  As such, they have no right to claim religious liberties.  Oh, I know they can make their own rules, like Chick-Fil-A that is always closed on Sundays, and my firms that are always closed on Jewish holidays, but we don’t make our employees only eat kosher food, either.

The Citizen’s United decision was another somewhat narrow ruling- holding that companies have First Amendment rights (freedom of speech).  And, there is no rule that contraception is illegal- or that if insurance provides for such coverage that you must so agree.  (After all, Christian Scientist adherents may work for companies that offer health insurance, even as they eschew such services on religious grounds.)

And, isn’t the claim of Hobby Lobby et. al not much different from other firms that aver the need to offer complete health care coverage is an unfair burden on them?  They would prefer to offer catastrophic coverage only to their employees.

This will be a most interesting Supreme Court ruling…

Share this: