Hobby Lobby Explained

The now famous case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (colloquially known as simply the Hobby Lobby case) was decided by the Supreme Court a little over a week ago. For those of you who don't live under a rock, you're well aware of the political and social turmoil that has resulted following the decision offered by the Supreme Court. Despite supporters arguing for Hobby Lobby's First Amendment rights and oppositionists arguing for individual (namely female) rights, it seems that the general public has a lack of understanding of the ins and outs of the case. It's my goal to remedy that.

First, I'd like to begin by explaining what exactly the terms of the suit were. Under the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), employers are mandated to provide employees with no-cost access to about 20 different forms of contraceptives. These include traditional forms of birth control that act proactively; that is, they are intended to prevent pregnancy from occurring. They also include four forms of retroactive birth control, also known as "the morning after pill" which terminate pregnancy at its earliest stages.

Due to the fact that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties (a cabinetry company also involved in the suit) are owned by conservative Christians, the religious beliefs of the owners contradict the use of the morning after pill. Therefore, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga argued that, due to their protection of religious freedom under the First Amendment, they should not be required to provide no-cost access to these four types of medicine and only these four types of morning after pills. These two companies were and are still completely willing to subsidize costs for traditional birth control.

The First Amendment rights of these corporations are further protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Although the federal government argued that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga - being corporations - do not receive protection under the RFRA, the Court disagreed. The Court stated that if this was the case, then companies would either forfeit their right to judicial protection of religious freedom or forfeit their status as companies. This, according to the Court, was not a fair choice for companies to face.

Not only is the RFRA broad in its general language, it also undoubtedly applies to individual persons. And according to the Dictionary Act and the general notion of corporate personhood, corporations are people. To quote the decision handed down by the Supreme Court: "a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people."

So it's already clear that corporations, as extensions of human beings, are treated under the law as people and have the same constitutional rights as people. This is not an issue that applies to most large, publicly owned corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, or IBM due to the fact that they are owned by many shareholders who all share different religious beliefs. For family owned companies, however, such as Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, or Chick-fil-A, whose owners have a well-defined and distinguishable religious ideology, the RFRA clearly applies.

Next, the Court was forced to consider whether a government mandate for these companies to provide the morning after pill imposed a substantial burden on the corporations' ability to exercise their religion. Due to the fact that the religious beliefs of Christianity are rather cut and dry, this was an easy question to answer: yes, a mandate does impose a substantial burden on their religious freedom.

Lastly, the Court considered whether the federal government has a considerable interest in ensuring that female employees receive the morning after pill and that they receive it in the least restrictive way possible. The Court found that the government, in fact, does have a reasonable interest in making sure that women receive the morning after pill. However, mandating companies to provide the medicine, in their opinion, is not the least restrictive way to provide it.

Instead, corporations can address the issue the same way that non-profits that are religiously opposed do. While still providing full health insurance, they may opt out of providing no-cost morning after pills, and the women, instead, can still receive coverage for these medicines by either the insurance company or the government paying for the medicine. Yes, that's right, women that work for Hobby Lobby or Conestoga can still receive no-cost morning after medicine.

Now, before you begin asking, "what if I work for a Christian Scientist or a Quaker? Can they choose not to provide vaccinations or any forms of medicine at all?" The answer, plainly, is no. The Court expressly stated that if there is a government interest to prevent disease, death, etc. and there is no less restrictive method of providing the appropriate medical care, then corporations very well may have to act outside of their religious ideology—whether they like it or not.

You've likely read on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and the like that this decision is a drastic blow to women's rights. You probably also read that corporations no longer have to provide any form of contraception and that women, now, will have to find alternative ways to purchase expensive birth control. That simply is not true. In its simplest form, the Supreme Court stated that corporations that have clear, well-intended religious objections to providing no-cost access to the morning after pill can opt out of doing so in the case that there is a less restrictive way to offer the same access to the same medicine for the same women.

Lastly, it's worth considering what this means for businesses and corporations. While the ruling has been generally viewed in a negative light by the American public, it has tremendous benefits for businesses. The most significant, of course, being that businesses have First Amendment rights. Say, for instance, you are a small business owner and you place a campaign sticker on your door, supporting a candidate. Without First Amendment rights for your business, your store could be shut down.

I support the idea that women should have access to all forms of health care and contraceptives if they desire it. I also support the idea that businesses and corporations should be protected, as people, under the First Amendment. Though you won't find it written in many other places, this decision is a universal win for everyone. Businesses get their way, women still get their way, and everyone's rights are still protected.