search
top

Supreme Court Rules in Hobby Lobby’s Favor

This is off topic, but it’s the big case of the year, so I thought it warranted coverage. The Supreme Court issued a narrow 5-4 decision in Hobby Lobby’s favor. Narrow because the decision only applies to closely held corporations, and applies to contraception mandates, but not to all insurance mandates. I tend to agree with the applicability being only to closely held corporations, in it would be difficult to divine the religious views of a widely-held, public corporation. Objections would tend only to reflect the views of management, who are in no respects representing the will of shareholders. It would be interesting to know what affect this would have in a non-profit corporation, say, a Catholic Charity, but I suspect it would apply to them as well. It would be less clear how this would apply to a membership non-profit like the NRA.

I’m more skeptical of the notion that the RFRA doesn’t apply to all insurance mandates. If a Christian Scientist business doesn’t want to offer coverage for “blood transfusions or vaccinations,” who are the courts to come along and say some people’s religious beliefs against contraception or abortion more legitimate than other people’s religious beliefs against blood transfusions or vaccinations? That’s the government deciding some religions are greater religions, while others are less so. It smacks of establishment to me.

6 Responses to “Supreme Court Rules in Hobby Lobby’s Favor”

  1. Christian Science pretty much denies the validity of all medical care.

    This is the inevitable consequence of the government having its finger in every pie: all the pies get damaged and unsanitary.

  2. HappyWarrior6 says:

    If you don’t like subsidizing evil then don’t buy that type of insurance. Oh, wait, can’t exactly do that, can we?

    • Alpheus says:

      ^^^^^
      This!

      Properly, we should be paying for insurance from our own pockets, rather than from our employers, so that we could take our insurance with us from job to job, much like life insurance.

      And we should be free to choose what is or is not in that plan. These “pre-condition” issues would be mitigated greatly if insurance companies could say “We’ll cover everything but future cancer treatments, because you’ve had cancer already, but if you get it again, here’s a nice charity to help you”. Instead, if I have had cancer, I cannot find insurance that could cover me, because government regulations require that insurance plans cover everything.

      It drives me nuts that so many people demand more government involvement in something that is in its sorry state because of government interference!

  3. gattsuru says:

    …who are the courts to come along and say some people’s religious beliefs against contraception or abortion more legitimate than other people’s religious beliefs against blood transfusions or vaccinations?

    The courts have solved this: they don’t judge the belief. They look at whether the government can achieve its reasonable goals in other, narrowly-tailored ways. In this case, the government could (and for nonprofits, already had).

    Not seeing a similar workaround for blood transfusions or vaccinations.

  4. I’m no longer sure where you’re getting your information, but
    great topic. I must spend a while learning much more or understanding more.
    Thanks for fantastic information I waas on the lookout for this info for my mission.

top