A Few Thoughts on Hobby Lobby

On Monday, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a landmark case, was handed down by the Supreme Court with a 5-4 decision, that protects the owner of Hobby Lobby’s free exercise by exempting its owners from having to provide certain types of contraception or any abortion-inducing drugs to their employees.  This exemption allows Hobby Lobby to bypass the regulations that were executed by the Department of Health and Human Services in carrying out the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After wading through social media, a plethora of articles, and arguments from the Opinion and Dissents of the Court what are a few takeaways from the ruling on Hobby Lobby?

I don’t want to give a purely emotive argument from either position. I’ve heard my conservative friends rally behind the decision and have officially welcomed Chief Justice John Roberts back to “our side.” I have also heard liberal organizations and lawmakers lament over the “clear and blatant” abuse of the rights of women and their ability to have their contraceptive needs covered by their insurers. Do either of these two positions take into account the fullness of the decision made? Of course not!

Firstly, the decision handed down yesterday was a victory for federalism. While Americans seems to become more and more disenfranchised with their government, this should be reason to restore some of their faith. The decision followed precedent of the law set forth in The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, this legislation was passed with extreme bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law protects the free exercise of religion by mandating that strict scrutiny be used when dealing with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Secondly, this is a victory for religious liberty in our nation. The arguments made by the Court provide us with an understanding that the government has no business violating the religious liberty of individuals or companies. Professor Robert George, channeling Richard John Neuhaus, articulates, “Protection for religious liberty doesn’t stop where commerce begins.”  Simply, our religious beliefs are not merely restricted at Mass or in our private lives but can extend into our public lives.

Finally, where does this leave us in regards to women’s rights?  An article written yesterday by Andrew Koppelman at The New Republic argues that this was also a victory for the rights of women.  The exemption of Hobby Lobby will not leave female employees without access to contraception coverage; the crafty solution allows the company’s insurers to provide access in separate policies:

When a group-health-insurance issuer receives notice that one of its clients has invoked this provision, the issuer must then exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide separate payments for contraceptive services for plan participants without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the eligible organization, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries. (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby)

The burden has been reduced to both those on the side of religious liberty and the rights of women.  So, let’s call this a victory for the nation as a whole, with the Court following federalism in crafting a solution to the case set before it.