Hobby Lobby ruling expands corporate rights
Published July 1, 2014
Editorial by News and Observer, June 30, 2014.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Monday that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees brought protests that it will deny some corporate employees full access to health care.
But the court's ruling was narrow, and its effect on women's use of contraception likely will not be as broad as its opponents claim. What was more disturbing about the ruling than the issue of preventing conception was the court majority's insistence on bringing into legal life a new entity - the corporation as person.
The court's conservative majority members first conferred personhood on corporations when they declared in the Citizens United case that corporations have a right to free speech. Laws barring corporate donations to influence campaign outcomes were therefore illegal. Now in deciding Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell, the court has endowed so-called "closely held" corporations with religious rights.
In an unnerving assertion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion, "Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law."
Corporate rights grow
It would seem much the opposite. A prime reason businesses incorporate is to protect their principals from personal liability. A corporation is by definition a legal construction, not a person. But now the court, in the thrall of these engines of commerce, is declaring them in profound ways entitled to the protections the law provides for people under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And with that, corporations not only have broken through limits on their influence on elections, but also gained rights of conscience.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the dissent, "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
Issue beyond contraception
That more corporations can be exempt from providing contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans is regrettable, but it's not an obstacle most women can't work around. It's already an exemption granted to churches and church-related businesses. And it's true that objections to contraceptive coverage conflict with the larger and broadly shared goal of reducing abortions - which are indeed dropping in the United States, apparently because of wider use of contraceptives.
But the greater issue isn't the subject of the ruling, but the assumption that supports it. And that is, as Gov. Mitt Romney said to a heckler during his presidential campaign, "Corporations are people, my friend."
When corporations are granted rights and protections once reserved for people, then the rights and freedoms of people are diluted and compromised. With the Citizens United ruling, the court has allowed the financial clout of corporations to drown out the free speech of ordinary citizens. And now with Hobby Lobby, the court has weakened the right of some women employees to access health care services they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act.
The Constitution protects the rights of religious groups and churches, but once individuals form a corporation for the purpose of making money, that corporation should be subject to the laws of the land regardless of how closely it is held.
Otherwise, the consequences are as Ginsburg wrote in dissent: "The court's expansive notion of corporate personhood invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths."
July 1, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Like I've said in another post, even when SCOTUS makes a decision that libs don't like, libs aren't willing to give up. When the decision is disliked by libs, it's no longer settled law. When libs like the decision, regardless of how wrong or how unConstitutional, the usual response to conservatives is to sit down, shut up, get used to it because it's now settled law. Double standard anyone? If we tried to keep track of all the double standards used by libs, desired by libs, proposed by libs, allowed by their allies in the media, we would run out of counting numbers first. It's actually easier to count the national debt than to count the double standards used by libs & their allies.
This is now settled law. Will libs get over it or sit down & shut up? Don't expect it. They will try extremely hard to find a way around settled law.
There are simply some things that can not and/or should not be mandated by a government in a free society. Remember when America was based on freedom instead of government intrusion into daily life? I know, it's hard to remember when, and it's getting worse. Not all birth control/contraceptives have been banned, not all contraceptives have been removed from the mandate. But if a promiscuous woman wants to prevent pregnancy she has that ability. If a non-promiscuous woman wants to prevent pregnancy, she has that ability. If I choose to use a condom, I have that ability. Neither of these is a right; its a choice, an option. Why on earth is it right for the government to mandate that I MUST pay for some woman I don't know, am not related to, and doesn't live in my house to have the contraceptive of her choice? Why not take advantage of the choices we do buy for you? Why do we have to provide for you the specific contraceptive that you want? Are you entitled? To my money? For something I don't believe in? When there are inexpensive alternatives? And, mind you, abortion is NOT contraception. The morning after pill is NOT contraception. If the more expensive options are abortive in nature, then they should be at your option, your expense. If you don't want to get pregnant, there's a solution that works EVERY TIME and it doesn't cost either you or me a penny. At least I'm not trying to force that option on you with the same vigor that you are trying to force your option on me. One of us feels entitled. The other believes it's my money, and my choices that I've made, it's time for you to make wise choices that YOU CAN AFFORD!
Whether the court has broken some sort of barrier by finally/rightfully claiming some level of personhood for corporations is a silly discussion. Why? Gay marriage is acceptable, doesn't open any unforeseen bad barriers, but allowing a business to be labeled as people is bad? Companies of every level are absolutely made up of people. Businesses aren't businesses unless there are people. When there's no people it's a mafia organization; but even some of them have people. But forcing gay marriage on people is detrimental to society, not NORMAL, causes problems - healthwise and other wise - but for some reason libs feel it's OK to force that on us. Prevent women from getting the contraceptive of THEIR CHOICE it's bad. Force bizarre behavior on society, acceptable. Libs are waiting for the day when SCOTUS will force gay marriage on us. Then they will once again claim it is settled law and stop all opportunities to change the law, cuz once it's settled lib law, it must never be changed or challenged. Lib things are sacred. Constitutional things are supposed to be challenged. Conservative things are supposed to be challenged until they are changed. It's the nature of things. Kinda like gay marriage isn't the nature of things; but libs like it so they play it for everything it's worth. Knowing that supporting gay marriage will eventually buy them some more votes.
