Headlines
Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (including the one in Mississippi)
By Tom Freeland, HottyToddy.com Blogger
Hobby Lobby / Photo courtesy of snopes.com
I have read most of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in the Hobby Lobby case and some of the majority opinion, and the upshot seem to be this: When Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it made clear its intent to overturn a couple of United States Supreme Court cases. But, Justice Ginsburg argues, what the majority is doing here goes far beyond restoration and creates a right that will allow someone like Hobby Lobby to use assertions of religious freedom even when it violates rights of third parties who do not share those beliefs.
While this point seems obvious on a moments reflection, it bears repeating: What the Court holds is that women who wish to have contraceptives can be denied that right because the owners of the business were they work don’t want them to have it. The majority suggests the possibility that the government can pay for the contraceptives although refuses to opine whether that’s even legal under the act. I’m sure if the Obama administration does this by regulation it will add to the screaming emanating from the House of Representatives about his lawlessness.
It is obvious that these notions are going to be argued in cases under the state act.
I may try to write more later, although this is another busy week. I’d like to see comments.
Read more blog posts by Tom Freeland at his NMissCommentor blog page.
| Mon, Nov 4 |  | vs Long Island University | W, 90-60 |
| Fri, Nov 8 |  | vs Grambling | W, 66-64 |
| Tue, Nov 12 |  | vs South Alabama | W, 64-54 |
| Sat, Nov 16 |  | vs Colorado State | W, 84-69 |
| Thu, Nov 21 |  | vs Oral Roberts | L, 100-68 |
| Thu, Nov 28 |  | vs BYU | W, 96-85 OT |
| Fri, Nov 29 |  | vs 13 Purdue | L, 80-78 |
| Tue, Dec 3 |  | @ Louisville | W, 86-63 |
| Sat, Dec 7 |  | vs Lindenwood | W, 86-53 |
| Sat, Dec 14 |  | vs Southern Miss | W, 77-46 |
| Tue, Dec 17 |  | vs Southern | W, 74-61 |
| Sat, Dec 21 |  | vs Queens University | W, 80-62 |
| Sat, Dec 28 |  | @ Memphis | L, 87-70 |
| Sat, Jan 4 |  | vs Georgia | W, 63-51 |
| Wed, Jan 8 |  | @ 23 Arkansas | W, 73-66 |
| Sat, Jan 11 |  | vs LSU | W, 77-65 |
| Tue, Jan 14 |  | @ 5 Alabama | W, 74-64 |
| Sat, Jan 18 |  | @ 17 Mississippi State | L, 81-84 |
| Wed, Jan 22 |  | vs 13 Texas A&M | L, 62-63 |
| Sat, Jan 25 |  | @ Missouri | 5:00 PM SECN |
| Wed, Jan 29 |  | vs Texas | 8:00 PM ESPN2 |
| Sat, Feb 1 |  | vs 2 Auburn | 3:00 PM TBA |
| Tue, Feb 4 |  | vs 10 Kentucky | 6:00 PM ESPN |
| Sat, Feb 8 | | @ LSU | 7:30 PM SECN |
| Wed, Feb 12 |  | @ South Carolina | 6:00 PM SECN |
| Sat, Feb 15 | | vs 17 Mississippi State | 5:00 PM TBA |
| Sat, Feb 22 |  | @ Vanderbilt | 2:30 PM SECN |
| Wed, Feb 26 | | @ 2 Auburn | 6:00 PM TBA |
| Sat, Mar 1 |  | vs 12 Oklahoma | 1:00 PM TBA |
| Wed, Mar 5 |  | vs 1 Tennessee | 8:00 PM TBA |
| Sat, Mar 8 |  | @ 6 Florida | 5:00 PM SECN |
lop2bwp
July 2, 2014 at 8:50 am
So, you’ve only read the dissent and then took a cursory glance at the actual Majority opinion. You didn’t even mention Kennedy’s concurrence with the majority. Doesn’t make your essay exactly balanced.
Please stop spreading misinformation. The Hobby Lobby decision doesn’t say that employees can’t have contraceptives. It only says that Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay to the 4 that they object to, believing them to be abortifacients. And the employee can still get them – just not paid for by Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan. The plan does cover the 16 other contraception methods mandated by HHS (including male condoms!), which are available to the employee at no cost.
Before 2012, when HHS implemented rules they established, that were not in the Act itself, no one ever thought twice about paying for their own birth control, whether it wasn’t covered under their plan or, if it was, a co-pay was involved.
This case was not a First Amendment case. Instead, it was brought under RFRA, which says the government must respect religious beliefs absent a compelling public interest reason (i.e., no better way to accomplish their goal). Given that the employee can still pay for it out of their own pocket, given that the President, via Executive Order, has already exempted the plans of religious non-profits and the employer sponsored plans of grandfathered in, which cover millions of people, given that Hobby Lobby is a privately held corporation, with all stock held by five family members (meeting the definition of “closely held”) that practice their religion overtly, the Supreme Court decided that the mandate wasn’t compelling enough in this instance to warrant the trampling of someone’s religious beliefs, as guaranteed under RFRA.
And you can stop worrying about whether it might be legal under the act for the government to pay for the objected to birth control. I’m sure they will find a way. After all, portions of the ACA have been delayed or changed via Executive order almost 40 times. It seems the ACA is whatever the Obama Administration decides it is on any given day.
How about reading all of the opinions, in full, and then give us your unvarnished analysis, rather than just regurgitating political talking points.
Jessica
July 28, 2014 at 6:32 pm
So you missed the decision mere days after this decision of the Supreme Court that said this applies to ALL birth control if it is objected to. Funny enough, the Church of Satan is now using this legislation to push for exemption in forced propaganda and delays for abortions based on their sincere belief that science should be adhered to in medical decisions. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Opened a can of worms we did.