When two corporations-- one owned by evangelicals and one owned by Mennonites-- filed suit over the Affordable Care Act, they described their complaint in stark and fairly simple terms: The government is forcing them to either break the law or betray their faith.
But at the Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 25), nothing was so clear as the justices explored the murky territory where an employer’s religious rights collide with the interests of its employees or the government.
On the one side is the Hobby Lobby arts-and-crafts chain and Conestoga Wood Specialties cabinetry company, both owned by devout families. On the other is the federal government, which argues that the landmark 2010 health care law gives women a statutory right to choose among 20 methods of birth control.
The court, judging from the justices’ questions, is clearly divided on this potential earthquake of a religious rights case. It could be yet another instance where Justice Anthony Kennedy provides the swing vote — in this case whether a corporation has religious rights, and whether those rights in this case have been trampled.
Hobby Lobby, owned by the Green family, and Conestoga, owned by the Hahns, object to paying for the full range of birth control drugs and devices as required by the Affordable Care Act. To them, a handful of the methods they must cover could cause abortion. Including these methods in their companies’ insurance package is, in their eyes, sinful.
The Court is expected to decide the case by June.
Read the full article then place your bets, people. We have corporate personhood and religion pitting itself against women's reproductive rights and individual freedom of religion (and freedom from religion).
My take: in the Roberts Kangaroo Court the outcome is preordained. Women must know their places. Step to the back of the bus, sit down and shut up. Never mind that the business owners have no obligation to use contraception, have abortions, or provide insurance at all. The Roberts Court will accept the false narrative that they're being "forced" to do so. The rest will be history.
What's your take?