Skip to footer

In Hobby Lobby ruling, a defense of religious dignity

In its Hobby Lobby ruling against the Obamacare mandate on contraceptive coverage, the Supreme Court centers its decision on the right of religious people, including owners of privately held corporations, not to be told by government that their beliefs are 'flawed.'

Customers visit a Hobby Lobby store in Denver. A Supreme Court decision upheld the craft-store chain's wish not to be forced under Obamacare to pay for contraceptive insurance that may result in destruction of an embryo.
  • By the Monitor's Editorial Board

Judge not.

That’s the central message in a Supreme Court ruling Monday that found the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) cannot be used to force a privately held corporation to act against the religious beliefs of its owners.

The high court decided that the 2010 health-care law violates religious liberty by demanding such owners pay for contraceptive insurance that they regard as immoral. Government must not force the employers to act against their faith, the court found, because that would be the same as judging their religious views to be “flawed.”

The case focused on insurance coverage for a few types of birth control methods that the Obama administration admits may result in the destruction of an embryo. Two families that run private corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, objected to participating in such coverage, based on a belief that life begins at conception.

The court did not disagree that government has a compelling interest in helping women in their reproductive choices. But that interest can be met in less restrictive ways than placing a substantial burden on the religious expression of individuals, even those who own a privately held corporation. Obamacare already imposes no contraceptive mandate on religious nonprofit groups and churches. (The court noted that a corporation can serve “any lawful purpose,” not just making profits for owners.)

The task now for President Obama and Congress is to make sure women working in such corporations are themselves not burdened in obtaining insurance for their health needs. Lifting the burden on some employers in the name of religious liberty should not restrict the liberty of others. Lawmakers may need to expand Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which currently provides limited funding for family planning. In this way, female workers at companies exempt from the mandate will not feel their employer’s beliefs are being imposed on them

The ruling upholds a 1993 law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which sets a high standard for the protection of religious expression, not only beliefs. The decision is only one test of this law’s attempt to balance secular and religious interests in a complex society grown accustomed to many government programs.

The Supreme Court acknowledges the difficulty of achieving such a balance. This ruling, the court states, applies only to the contraceptive mandate. Still it lays down a valuable principle that government has alternatives when it seeks to impose itself on the free exercise of religion. Government can do much good, but first it must do no harm to either the beliefs or the actions of those who, as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in this ruling, “believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to In Hobby Lobby ruling, a defense of religious dignity
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2014/0630/In-Hobby-Lobby-ruling-a-defense-of-religious-dignity
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe