On Monday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby that the Affordable Care Act cannot mandate “closely-held businesses” to provide health care coverage for certain kinds of contraceptives for their employees — and that opens up a scary path for-profit companies.
The case involved Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties, two companies considered to be “closely held” because five or less people own more than half the stock. The two argued the federal health care act violated their First Amendment right to religious freedom by requiring the companies to cover certain types of contraceptives, including morning-after pills.
The ruling states providing coverage for those contraceptives violates the “sincerely held” religious beliefs of the companies’ owners — saying if the companies followed the Affordable Care Act’s mandates, they would be facilitating abortion, and if they did not opt to follow the mandates, they would pay huge annual penalties of up to $475 million a year.
On paper, the ruling affects a woman’s ability to use contraceptives, but the precedent it sets could be much wider-reaching. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg insists closely-held companies now can opt out of any law that violates their religious beliefs.
This is a dangerous step into a dark, unknown place — where a company operated under religious beliefs can restrict a woman’s health care coverage for contraceptives and can now decline on religious grounds to offer coverage for anything that violates their beliefs.
This ruling means companies could now argue providing benefits or health care coverage to same-sex spouses violates their religious beliefs, and Ginsburg points out that blood transfusions, vaccinations and antidepressants are also against the beliefs of other religions in the country — these too could go uncovered.
By protecting the religious freedoms of a company, the ruling also restricts a company employee’s access to health benefits — as well as forcing them to comply with their company’s religious beliefs, which may not be their own.
Who stands to benefit here?
There is a difference between protecting the religious freedom of a person and the religious freedom of a company, even a closely-held company. Our country’s economy is not ruled by religious freedom — what purpose do a company’s religious beliefs serve in a secular market?
