Tag Archives: SCOTUS

America’s Obamacare is here to stay

America's Obamacare is here to stay. The Canadian experience shows why. -- Tom Regan

America’s Obamacare is here to stay. The Canadian experience shows why. — Tom Regan

TOM REGAN: SUMMONING ORENDA  
June, 2015 

Back in the early- to mid-60s, my dad was a press secretary/information officer for then-Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson. During those years, he was intensely involved in two major political issues: the search for a new Canadian flag, and the adoption of universal health care.

I won’t bore you with the details, but the fight for universal health care in Canada was every bit as noisy, brutal and political as is the current battle in the United States over Obamacare. For instance, one group Pearson and his party had to face, which Obama never had to deal with, were the doctors. They were adamantly opposed to universal health care. 

In the end, after a long battle, universal health care became a reality in Canada, and for one main reason, I believe, and which I heard my dad say time and again: once people get it, they won’t want to give it up.

That is exactly the reason that, after this week’s strongly worded 6-3 decision by the US Supreme Court in favor of the subsidies offered by Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (its official name) is here is to stay, regardless of all the sturm und drang that can be expected from GOP presidential candidates and conservatives.

The subsides are the key. While these subsidies cost the government billions, they also result in billions more in savings in long term health care costs. The success of this aspect of the ACA is already beginning to show.

You can see it in the polls. While the ACA remains supposedly unpopular with the American public, with support hovering only in the upper 30s, when the same group of people are asked about the subsidies, a resounding 59% of them want them to stay in place. There are two reasons for this: one, the number of people opposed to Obamacare includes a number who don’t think the ACA went far enough and want a more Canadian-like system. And second, as my dad noted, once they get it, they won’t want to give it up.

This notion of not wanting to give it up actually has a strong basis in psychology. The great Nobel Prize-winning psychologist/economist Daniel Kahnemann writes about it at length in his great book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow.”

It works this way. Suppose you give someone a door prize at a party, say a new iPhone. At the end of the party, as the lucky winner is leaving, you make this offer to her: you’ll give her $300 for the phone, which is about $50 more than its worth. In most cases, when offered this kind of transaction, people won’t make the trade, because they hate the idea of losing something they already have. It’s known as loss aversion, and studies by Kahneman and his partner, the late Amos Tversky, suggest that losses are about twice as powerful psychologically as are gains.

And here’s why that’s a problem for conservatives who still want to replace Obamacare with their own plan. First, they’ll politically never be able to take away the subsidies completely, because voters would be furious. But loss aversion research shows that even if the GOP came up with a similar plan that offer similar benefits, people are not likely to go for it because they hate giving up what they already have.

With the Supreme Court upholding the ACA, that gives at least another year and a half for people to sign up for government-subsidized health care, and if any branch of the government is in Democratic hands after 2016, that means at least two more years after that.

While there are other law suits trying to make their way through the legal system, they are too late now. If the conservatives had won this week, they would still have had a difficult time, but it would have been possible to undo the ACA. Now, it’s impossible.

Like my dad said, once they get it, they won’t want to give it up. Obamacare is here to stay. Conservatives will just have to read it and weep.

 

Copyright Tom Regan 2015 

Contact Tom Regan:  motnager@gmail.com

References and further reading:

History Museum’s history of health care in Canada provides a great outline of the battles: http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic01e.shtml

An explanation of Loss Aversion
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

 

Tom Regan Tom Regan has worked for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and with the National Film Board in Canada, and in the United States for the Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe, and National Public Radio A former executive director of the Online News Association, he was a Nieman fellow at Harvard in 1991-92.

 

 

 

 

 

~~~

Facts and Opinions is an online journal of select and first-rate reporting and analysis, in words and images: a boutique for select journalism, without borders. Independent, non-partisan and employee-owned, F&O performs journalism for citizens, funded entirely by readers. We do not carry advertising or solicit donations from foundations or causes. Help sustain us with a donation (below), by telling others about us, or purchasing a $1 day pass or subscription, from $2.95/month to $19.95/year. To receive F&O’s free blog emails fill in the form on the FRONTLINES page. 

 

 

Posted in Also tagged , , , , |

U.S. court affirms equality of same sex marriage

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. …It is so ordered. — Anthony M. Kennedy, Supreme Court of the United States 

Supreme Court ruling celebration. Photo by Russell Mondy via Flickr, Creative Commons

Supreme Court ruling celebration on June 26. Photo by Russell Mondy via Flickr, Creative Commons

By Deborah Jones
June 26, 2015 

By just a single vote, a bitterly split United States Supreme Court today ruled the U.S. constitution grants same sex couples “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” Both the majority ruling affirming the right of same-sex citizens to marry, and the dissenting opinions, blaze with fiery passion, angst and literary fervour. 

In essence, the ruling answered “yes” to two questions: whether the constitution requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and whether it requires a State to recognize a same- sex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does grant that right. 

The petitioners, Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases, include 14 same-sex couples, plus two men with deceased partners.

All previously, successfully, challenged legislation in their home states defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and banning recognition of same-sex marriages in other states where they are legal. 

The petitioners were joined as a group in one case, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court reversed those lower court decisions. It ruled a State has no constitutional obligation to license same-sex marriages, or to recognize same-sex marriages elsewhere.

The appeal of that decision was heard by the Supreme Court on April 28. Today’s ruling means the petitioners, and all Americans, join 18 other countries with legal same sex marriage; legalization is on the books and pending in three other nations.

The situations of the petitioners are not unique, noted the court. “For some couples, even an ordinary drive into a neighboring State to visit family or friends risks causing severe hardship in the event of a spouse’s hospitalization while across state lines,” wrote Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the majority.”In light of the fact that many States already allow same-sex marriage — and hundreds of thousands of these marriages already have occurred — the disruption caused by the recognition bans is significant and ever-growing.”

The cases of the petitioners were, however, uniquely compelling. They include:

  • James Obergefell met John Arthur over two decades ago, and lived in Ohio. Wrote Kennedy: “They fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting, committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died. Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest of time.”He brought suit to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate.”
  • April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, nurses in Michigan who celebrated a commitment ceremony in 2007, adopted three children, including a premature baby abandoned by his biological mother and a baby girl with special needs. Because Michigan permits only opposite-sex married couples or single individuals to adopt, each child could have only one legal parent. Noted Kennedy’s ruling: “If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights over the children she had not been permitted to adopt.”
  • Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his partner Thomas Kostura married in 2011 in New York, before DeKoe deployed to Afghanistan for one year. Noted Kennedy: “When he returned, the two settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects, must endure a substantial burden. “

Myths and Legends

The ruling and dissenting opinions, like much of America, seem larger than life: falling short only of fire and brimstone, the writing of the justices evokes both legal precedents and the authority of figures from Confucius and Cicero to  John Locke and John Stuart Mill; from William Faulkner to Alexis de Tocqueville. 

Arguments in the landmark case pivot on the mythological undercurrents in America: liberty, the rule of law over the rule of man, individual rights, elites versus the common man, and with a nod to America’s raging culture wars, “activist courts.” There was little about religion in the judgement — though outside the court, religious belief dominates the issue, with believers on both sides.

Anthony M. Kennedy, official

Anthony M. Kennedy

Kennedy wrote that “changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.” He wrote:

“From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.

The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government … This wisdom was echoed centuries later and half a world away by Cicero, who wrote, “The first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then the family.”” …  There are untold references to the beauty of marriage in religious and philosophical texts spanning time, cultures, and faiths, as well as in art and literature in all their forms. It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex.  

That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held — and continues to be held — in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and through- out the world.  

The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”

Roberts

John G. Roberts

“For those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening,” responded John G. Roberts, Chief Justice, in a dissent alternatively dripping with scorn and seeming to exude despair; at one point he even invoked William Faulkner’s Requiem for a Nun: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” 

Wrote Roberts:

“Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description— and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thought- ful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. …. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” Ante, at 19. The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.“ 

In a scathing critique of judicial elites, dissenter Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, wrote: “the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South- westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination.” Scalia added:

“When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re- sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again … That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work … But today the Court puts a stop to all that.”

The document is worthy of the time required to read it in full, here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 Meantime, more selected excerpts are below.

 

  Arguments at the United States Supreme Court for Same-Sex Marriage on April 28, 2015. Photo by Ted Eytan via Flickr, Creative Commons


Arguments at the United States Supreme Court for Same-Sex Marriage on April 28, 2015. Photo by Ted Eytan via Flickr, Creative Commons

Kennedy on social order:

Marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order…   Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this truth on his travels through the United States almost two centuries ago: “There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America . . . [W]hen the American retires from the turmoil of pub- lic life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the im- age of order and of peace . . . . [H]e afterwards carries [that image] with him into public affairs.”…

States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. 

The White House came alight Friday evening in the colours of the rainbow to celebrate the court ruling. White House photo, public domain.

The White House came alight Friday evening in the colours of the rainbow to celebrate the court ruling. White House photo, public domain.

Kennedy on the right time to recognize same-sex marriages:

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understand- ing of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. … There may be an initial inclination in these cases to proceed with caution—to await further legislation, litigation, and debate. … Yet there has been far more deliberation than this argument acknowledges.

Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights. Indeed, it is most often through democracy that liberty is preserved and protected in our lives. But  … when the rights of persons are violated, “the Constitution requires redress by the courts,” notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decision making ….”

 Kennedy on individual autonomy:

Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.  Indeed, the Court has noted it would be contradictory “to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.”   … Choices about marriage shape an individual’s destiny. As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has explained, because “it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.”  

The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.”

Kennedy on the children of same-sex couples:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.  … That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in dissent:

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so…  Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.”

Chief Justice Roberts, in dissent:

….this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

… the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s ap- proach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex mar- riage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent:

“The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. “

Samuel Alito, in dissent:

Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.  It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. … The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Few reactions to the ruling matched the court in eloquence — though passion was in abundance. Advocates and activists celebrated. Pop media thrilled with stories about Rick Scarborough (Google search), a religious Texan who promised to “burn” if same sex marriage were law of the land. At the time of this writing, there was no indication that he’d set himself alight. Louisiana’s attorney general called the ruling an “intrusion into .. a state issue,” and denied the order was immediately effective. One Alabama judge noted he already had stopped issuing marriage licences — to anyone. (Politico

Eighteen other countries already regard same sex marriages as legal; in most of them, it’s almost a humdrum administrative matter. Weeks before the American ruling, Irish citizens voted to legalize same sex marriage in Ireland. But in keeping with America’s larger-than-life reputation, it is the American judgement that is making global news this week. And on Friday evening, the White House lit up in the colours of the rainbow.

References and further information:

Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases,United States Supreme Court ruling, PDF: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Wikipedia page on Same Sex Marriage:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

New York Times report on the ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

A Profound Ruling Delivers Justice on Gay Marriage, New York Times editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/opinion/a-profound-ruling-delivers-justice-on-gay-marriage.html?emc=edit_ty_20150626&nl=opinion&nlid=18460284

 Same-sex marriages still on hold in Louisiana, Mississippi, Politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/mississippi-gay-marriage-on-hold-supreme-court-ruling-119473.html#ixzz3eC3yjKxI

In a statement entitled “God Defined Marriage,” the National Association of Evangelicals said, “”Nothing in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges opinion changes the truth about marriage. What has changed is the legal definition of marriage, which is now at variance with orthodox biblical faith:“  http://nae.net/god-defined-marriage/

“What the Court can make legal, they cannot make moral,” said George O. Wood of the Assemblies of God, in a story on the organiztion’s site entitled “Supreme Confusion.”: http://penews.org/Article/Supreme-Confusion/ 

U.S. President Barack Obama on the Supreme Court ruling:

 

~~~

Facts and Opinions is an online journal of select and first-rate reporting and analysis, in words and images: a boutique for slow journalism, without borders. Independent, non-partisan and employee-owned, F&O performs journalism for citizens, funded entirely by readers. We do not carry advertising or solicit donations from foundations or causes. Subscribe by email to our free FRONTLINES, a blog announcing new works, and the odd small tale. Look for evidence-based reporting in Reports; commentary, analysis and creative non-fiction in OPINION-FEATURES; and image galleries in PHOTO-ESSAYS. Some of our original works are behind a paywall, available with a $1 site day pass, or with a subscription from $2.95/month – $19.95/year. If you value journalism, please help sustain us.

 

Posted in Also tagged , , , |

Bombast

An American court lobbed a bombshell into the culture wars today, by ruling that some United States corporations have religious rights. My first notice of the decision was an email alert from the New York Times:

220px-HobbyLobbyStowOhio

Hobby Lobby in Stow, Ohio. Photo: DangApricot, Creative Commons/Wikimedia

“The Supreme Court has ruled on whether for-profit corporations may advance claims based on religious freedom. Our reporters are reading the decision and will update this article as soon as they feel confident about its basic meaning. (Emphasis is mine.)

The restraint in that simple message was, oddly, a relief.

Civility and sanity drown a bit more every day in maelstroms formed by instant explosive rage smashing into gloating triumph. They occur everywhere in the global 24/7 new cycle, but America’s culture wars are especially loud, vicious, and polarizing. Restraint such as by the Times —  of actually reading the decision, and refraining from analysis until “confident about its basic meaning” — helps defuse the bombast of instant analysis. Sage judgement matters as much in journalism as in politics, and I consider the Times one of the few journalism outfits worth a subscription price.

But the best antidote to the bombast, and a whole lot else, is thinking for oneself. The same Internet that fuels outrage also opens up a world of information. Nobody should take anyone’s word on today’s decision, whether they’re a Fox News commenter, an Al Jazeera reporter, a New York Times analyst, or the countless partisans, paid lobbyists, ideologues or religious leaders. The decision is published here, on the court web site, for those willing to sift through the legalese, glean the tension between every line, think, and maybe even ask: is this really how we want to run our world?

Here’s a brief summary of who, what, when and why — along with select excerpts of the ruling written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and the dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  

BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL.

The court heard the case on March 25, and released its 5-4 split ruling on June 30. A majority of conservative judges overruled the liberal minority. 

The essence:

Citing their personal religious beliefs, owners of corporations who self-identify as Christians won their battle against government efforts to make companies pay for contraceptives as part of their employees’ health benefits — especially contraceptives that disrupt pregnancy, which the business owners consider tantamount to abortion. Religious organizations were already exempt from the requirement to pay. The court ruled: “Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.”

The cause:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” … As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 … RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”

The background: 

United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations require employers group health plans to pay their employee costs for 20 contraceptive methods, wrote Alito, “including the four that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost- sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries.”

“In these cases, the owners of three closely-held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point. In separate actions, they sued HHS and other federal officials and agencies (collectively HHS) under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause, seeking to enjoin application of the contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives.”

The cases came together in America’s top court after conflicting rulings by lower courts. One court previously ruled that “a for-profit corporation could not “engage in religious exercise” … and said the (insurance coverage) mandate was not an imposition on a corporation’s owners. Another court ruled that businesses are “persons” and the contraceptive mandate “substantially burdened (the company owners’) exercise of religion. It said no compelling interest had been made in favour of the insurance requirement or, alternatively, if there were a compelling governmental interest, the health department had failed to prove a “least restrictive means” of furthering it.

The majority ruling: 

Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA….

(a) RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations …

(1) HHS argues that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations, and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies, but that would leave merchants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations. RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice. It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned in her dissenting opinion of wide and unintended repercussions of the ruling, and noted  why religious exemptions to American laws have never before been extended to any entity operating in “the commercial, profit-making world:”

“The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations … (the U.S.) requires reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious exercise, but such accommodation must not come “at the expense of other[ employees]”). The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention …

The Court’s determination that RFRA extends to for- profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private … The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public. … claims will proliferate, for the Court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood — combined with its other errors in construing RFRA — invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith …

~~~

— Deborah Jones

 

Facts and Opinions is a boutique for slow journalism, without borders. Independent, non-partisan and employee-owned, F&O performs journalism for citizens, sustained by readers: instead of carrying advertising or soliciting donations, we have a paywall.  Why? If you’d like to support our journalism, for $2.95, the cost of a cheap brew, you can subscribe to F&O for a month. If that breaks your budget, a one-day pass is $1.) 

Posted in Gyroscope Also tagged , , |