Corporate Accountability

Supreme Court to take up birth control religion case

By Chantal Valery (AFP)

 

Washington — The US Supreme Court said it will address the question of whether a firm can use religious grounds to limit the availability of birth control on its health plan.

 

The court’s nine justices announced they would hear arguments, probably in March or April, in two cases between the US government and firms that object to purchasing health coverage covering certain contraceptive methods.

 

In the first case, President Barack Obama’s administration is challenging the refusal of Hobby Lobby Stores to underwrite coverage for certain contraceptive methods.

 

“The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women,” the White House said in a statement shortly after the Supreme Court decision.

 

The Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby chain says it manages its business “in a manner consistent with biblical principles.”

 

Joined by the religious bookstore Mardel, Hobby Lobby has refused to abide by the new health care law’s requirement that it provide health insurance coverage for four methods of contraception (two abortive pills and two types of IUDs), or pay a fine.

 

The chain has not challenged other methods agreed to by the federal government — contraceptive pills, diaphragms and other barrier methods — but it objects to the four specific methods on grounds they are in its view comparable to abortion.

 

In a brief filed with the court, the company argued that “by providing insurance coverage for contraceptives that could prevent a human embryo from implanting in the uterus, they themselves would be morally complicit in ‘the death of [an] embryo.’?

 

A federal appeals court agreed, ruling that the legal requirement was counter to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

 

The Obama health care law exempted churches and other religious organizations from having to provide coverage for birth control.

 

But the government argued that “no court has ever found a for-profit company to be a religious organization for purposes of federal law.”

 

The second case to be taken up by the court involves Pennsylvania company Conestoga Wood Specialists, which has appealed to the Supreme Court after losing a case in a lower court.

 

The firm, which is owned by a Mennonite family, is arguing that it should be considered a religious organization and included with other groups that have been made exempt from the law.

 

The White House said it already acted to ensure that “no church or similar religious institution will be forced to provide contraception coverage and has made a commonsense accommodation for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds.”

 

“These steps protect both women’s health and religious beliefs and seek to ensure that women and families — not their bosses or corporate CEOs — can make personal health decisions based on their needs and their budgets,” the White House said.

 

Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, said there was no historic precedent of applying freedom of religion protections to for-profit entities.

 

“In the entire history of US constitutional law, secular for-profit corporations have never been understood to be protected by the first amendment right to free exercise of religion,” Wydra told AFP.

 

Legal analysts said the Supreme Court would examine whether corporations should be granted free religious expression.

 

If they are, it “would permit employers to impose their moral views on their employees, setting a dangerous precedent that would be discriminatory towards women and do great harm to women’s health and religious freedom in this country,” said Donna Barry, head of the Centre for American Progress (CAP).

 

Anti-abortion and pro-life organizations meanwhile applauded the Supreme Court decision to address the case, which dealt with “fundamental freedom of religion and conscience” issues.

 

“We hope that once and for all the Supreme Court clearly say that religious freedom in this country must be protected for family businesses,” said Kyle Duncan, counsel for Hobby Lobby.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
 

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.
Corporate Accountability
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: In narrow ruling, Supreme Court rejects baseless effort to shield corporate-derived income from taxation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moore v. United...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 13, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court’s Disappointing Decision in Starbucks Union Case Fails to Account for History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney,...
By: Smita Ghosh
Corporate Accountability
May 30, 2024

Supreme Court gives New Yorkers second shot in escrow interest-payment fight

Courthouse News Service
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Thursday gave New York homeowners another shot at...
By: Smita Ghosh, Kelsey Reichmann
Corporate Accountability
May 30, 2024

RELEASE: Grounded in Text and History, Today’s Decision is a Win for America’s Consumers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Cantero v. Bank of...
By: Smita Ghosh
Corporate Accountability
May 15, 2024

The Fifth Circuit Is In the Tank For Corporate Power

Balls and Strikes
When the government does things that megacorporations don’t like, they know exactly where to go...