Consistency

I find the actions of the United States Supreme Court interesting and the reactions of the "winners" and "losers" fascinating. Today I want to take a few minutes to look at the decision in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. The Court sent a rather clear signal in this ruling that some for-profit businesses had a right not to provide birth control services to their female workers. The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores involved devoutly religious business owners who objected to only four contraceptives out of the 16 required methods or preventive services required under the Affordable Care Act. The four objected to were "the morning after pills" Ella and Plan B and two intrauterine devices (IUDs). The owners of Hobby Lobby felt that those options were essentially abortions since they feel life begins at conception. They felt these methods of birth control prevented implantation of a fertilized egg. I am not a medical expert but from the information I have been reading this is apparently incorrect. The Court attempted to limit the ruling by indicating that it would only apply to certain "closely held businesses". It seems the numbers being thrown around indicate that this closely held designation may apply to as many as 90% of all United States for-profit businesses. Many progressives have complained (incorrectly) that Hobby Lobby is being allowed to not provide any birth control coverage. Many on the conservative side indicate (incorrectly) that this is a victory for religious freedom. Now on to the topic of the day consistency.

Hobby Lobby does not appear to me to have a serious issue with IUD's or the morning after pills they complained to the Court about. Why do I say that? They are and have been part of their current health insurance coverage before the passage and mandate under the Affordable Care Act. It is an attempt to take a different tact to fight the Affordable Care Act. The other inconsistency I see here is the fact that they have money invested in the companies that produce the IUD's and morning after pills. If you really had a problem with those birth control devices wouldn't you divest of those investments and not provide those options in your health care plan before they were mandated?

Is the Court being consistent? Previous court cases have resulted in decisions from the Court that money is speech and corporations are people. The relevant issue for the Court seems to be language in the federal Dictionary Act which specifically includes "corporations" in its definition of "person". The federal government has conceded in the past that non-profit corporations can exercise religion. The Court sees for-profit businesses as not that much different as they can have goals other than making money and do support a variety of charitable causes. We can argue if corporations are "persons" but until the Dictionary Act or the Constitution are changed this is where we are. I doubt the Founding Fathers saw corporations as people but they aren't here to ask and it wouldn't matter anyway. Justice Ruth Vader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion that the Court was stepping into a minefield and corporations would use the decision to attempt to opt out of any law that ran contrary to their "closely held religious beliefs". I suspect Justice Ginsburg is correct and the Court system will be flooded with cases attempting to make "religious objections" to a wide variety of laws. Time will tell.

The Hobby Lobby case has additional immediate implications. The Court also dealt with six other petitions that addressed challenges to the birth control mandate. They are as follows.

Autocam Corp v. Burwell- Catholic owners of a company that manufactures products for the automobile and medical supply industries objected to all forms of birth control services mandated under the Affordable Care Act. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had rejected their claim. The Supreme Court vacated that ruling and ordered a review under the Hobby Lobby decision.

Gilardi v. Department of Health and Human Services. Two Catholic brothers who operate businesses in Ohio objected to all forms of preventive contraceptive services. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the corporations challenges. The Supreme Court has ordered reconsideration.

Eden Foods v. Burwell. Catholic owners of a food company in Michigan objected to all forms of preventive services. The Sixth Circuit Court relying on its Autocam decision rejected the claim. The Supreme Court ordered reconsideration.

Department of Health and Human Services V. Gilardi. This is a government appeal. It involves the Catholic brothers mentioned above. In this case the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the brothers and their challenge to all forms of preventive services. Review by the Supreme Court was denied.

Burwell v. Newland. Govenment appeal. This case involved Catholic owners of a Colorado company who objected to all forms of preventive services. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit applying its decision when the Hobby Lobby case was before it upheld the challenge of the company. Review by the Supreme Court denied.

Burwell v. Korte. Government appeal. This case involved two Catholic families who objected to all preventive services. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld challenges for both groups and their companies. Review denied by the Supreme Court.

It is clear to me that this issue is not one that is able to be covered in the sound bite reporting of modern newscasts. The decisions being made by the Court while I think they are incorrect are at least consistent. The conduct of some of the businesses bring suit in my mind have not been. If you have always objected to these preventive measures they should not have been provided before they were mandated. They were provided and it calls into question the motivation of those bringing the issues to the Court.