Thread: The Dark Side of Hobby Lobby

The Dark Side of Hobby Lobby


Note: This item originally appeared at the website of The American Thinker.


The Hobby Lobby case is being hailed by freedom advocates as a great victory. On balance it certainly it is a victory for those who value personal freedom. But it also contains land mines that may one day prove destructive to freedom.

One of these land mines is how the justices treated the question of whether mandated abortifacient insurance promotes a “compelling government interest.”

In its principal opinion, the Court assumed for purposes of argument that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contraceptive mandate serves a compelling government interest. However, five members of the Court – a majority – went farther: Justice Kennedy stated in concurring opinion that the decision’s “premise” was that the federal government had a “compelling interest in the health of female employees.” The four dissenters affirmatively claimed that the mandate furthered “compelling interests in public health and women’s well being.”

The mandate in question was issued under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). In 2011, a federal district judge found that another Obamacare mandate also served a “compelling interest” (Mead v. Holder).

It is a very serious matter when the Supreme Court classifies a law or other government action as serving a “compelling interest.” In the Court’s jurisprudence, most laws promote only “legitimate” interests, and a few promote legitimate interests that are “important” as well. On rare occasions, a legitimate interest is held also to be “compelling.” If a law is deemed “necessary” to advance the compelling interest, the law may actually overrule portions of the Bill of Rights. It also may overrule basic liberties listed elsewhere in the Constitution or in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Although the ObamaCare mandate in Hobby Lobby ultimately did not override the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the ObamaCare mandate in Mead v. Holder did.

In our federal system, the states enjoy broad powers to regulate to promote health, safety, morals, and general welfare. In other words, states can employ the law for many legitimate purposes. The Court has found that some of these legitimate purposes are compelling. For example, a state vaccination law designed to prevent epidemics may overrule one’s right to refuse vaccination. Similarly, the Court holds that a state’s interest in stamping out racial discrimination is not only legitimate, but compelling.

Still, the number of compelling interests is fairly small. Even state health laws usually are not compelling enough to overrule fundamental rights.
Unlike the states, the federal government is limited to the enumerated powers granted in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that some of these enumerated powers also serve compelling interests, such as national defense and Congress’s 14^thAmendment authority to remedy discrimination by state governments. But federal peacetime economic regulations, like state laws, are almost never “compelling.”

That brings us to ObamaCare. The Affordable Care Act has all sorts of social and health care implications, but (aside from its taxes and spending provisions) it is justified constitutionally as a set of commercial and economic regulations. For example, when arguing that the Supreme Court should uphold ObamaCare, the president characterized it as “a[n] economic issue … that I think most people would clearly consider commerce.” In her Hobby Lobby dissent, Justice Ginsburg likewise cited economic factors to justify the contraceptive mandate.

Thus, despite ObamaCare’s health implications, its constitutional purpose is economics or, more precisely, commerce. ObamaCare’s regulations on insurance companies and employers, such as the contraceptive mandate, specifically are said to rest on the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. This is because the Constitution grants the federal government no enumerated power over health care. The great Chief Justice John Marshall made this very point in his famous opinion in Gibbons v. Odgen, when he wrote that “health laws of every description” were reserved exclusively to the states.

But if, constitutionally, ObamaCare is but a collection of economic regulations – and if peacetime economic interests are virtually never “compelling” – then why is ObamaCare different? Is it just that the ObamaCare is popular among the class of people who serve as federal judges?

The answer is that in this sense, ObamaCare is not different. It is constitutionally similar to many hundreds of other economic regulations enacted by Congress and the states. It is just more comprehensive and much more intrusive.

Now consider the risk to freedom from allowing such a law to be lifted to “compelling” status. That risk extends far beyond the threat to religious liberty. If, for example, providing “free” contraceptives is a compelling interest, then Congress might pass a law forcing companies to produce them. Or if forcing people to buy insurance serves a compelling interest, then federal officials might well demand laws to jail people who try to dissuade others from signing up.

Remember the Supreme Court’s formula: a law necessary to promote a compelling interest can override the Bill of Rights. ObamaCare is barely constitutional – if it is constitutional at all. We must not allow the courts to sanctify it.


Post script: More than two years ago, I predicted that the Supreme Court would dismiss the anti-mandate First Amendment claims and that Mead v. Holder raised the possibility that some judges would treat Obamacare as “compelling.” You read it here first!



About the author
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.constitution.i2i.org/about/.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.



http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...f-hobby-lobby/

Wednesday, 16 July 2014 15:40

Democrats to Introduce Bill to Undermine Supreme Court Hobby Lobby Ruling


Written by Raven Clabough

Retaliating against the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Hobby Lobby, Democratic senators have announced plans to introduce a bill nicknamed "Not My Boss's Business Act." The intent of the bill is to restore the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act despite the Supreme Court's finding that business owners should not have to compromise their own religious beliefs to adhere to a policy set forth by the federal government.

The New American's Dave Bohon reported on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision on June 30:
The ruling came in favor of two family-held companies — Hobby Lobby, owned by the Green family, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, owned by the Hahn family — both of whom had said that the mandate would represent an unacceptable moral obstacle to their businesses. Both companies faced millions of dollars in fines for refusing to make available abortion-inducing contraceptive drugs to their employees. Hobby Lobby and another company owned by the Greens faced as much as $1.3 million in fines for CEO David Green's resolute refusal to bow to the mandate. "This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only," said Green when his company first filed suit to stop the mandate — "the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution."


The majority opinion cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act asserting that the federal Department of Health and Human Services cannot force owners of Christian-based businesses to violate their convictions to adhere to the mandate.

"In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships," wrote Justice Alito for the majority in the two cases. "The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs."

Unwilling to accept the Supreme Court's findings, Democrats have announced the "Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act" to ensure that "no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to healthcare."

Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Mark Udall have nicknamed the bill the "Not My Boss's Business Act" and are joined by Democrats from both chambers of Congress as well as women's rights groups. "We are here to ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to healthcare," Murray, of Washington state, said, speaking at the Capitol. "I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans to make their own decision about their own health care and their own bodies."

Senator Murray's webpage outlines the bill's purpose. The introduction states, "Contraception is a core preventative service for women, coverage of which was guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. Yet, this June the Supreme Court held in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Burwell, that some corporations can get out of complying with the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement if they have religious beliefs against birth control."

The bill will prevent employers from refusing to cover any health coverage, to include contraceptive coverage, that is guaranteed to employees and dependents under federal law. It would state that all federal laws prohibit employers from refusing to comply with the ACA requirement, and the bill would only permit houses of worship and religious non-profits to benefit from an exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement.

Murray's page cites Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent: "In this decision of starling breadth ... the exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga ... would deny legions of women who do not hold their employer's beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure."

Democrats are hoping to make the Supreme Court ruling a hotbutton issue in the midterm elections and believe it may sway voters. Yahoo News reports, "With their control of the Senate in jeopardy, Democrats are trying to energize and awaken liberal voters who tend to sit out congressional elections."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated he will be bringing the bill to the Senate floor for a vote next week, stating that any of those who do not support the bill will be "treated unfavorably come November with the elections."

Thirty-five Democratic senators have signed onto the legislation.

Senator Barbara Boxer of California called the Supreme Court's decision an "outrage" at a news conference last week and announced her support for the bill. "The court's majority has decided that corporations are entitled to more rights than individual Americans," Boxer said, calling the majority's ruling "ideological" and "political."

Implementing fear tactics in an effort to arouse public support, Democrats claim that they fear that the Supreme Court ruling may set a precedent that would allow employers to deny other types of health coverage based on religious beliefs. "If bosses can deny birth control, they can deny vaccines, HIV treatment or other basic health services for employees or their dependents," Murray said.

Udall adds that women should not be forced to have to ask for a "permission slip" to gain access to birth control. Yahoo notes that Udall is currently facing a tough reelection bid and has been an outspoken critic of his Republican opponent's voting record on birth control and abortion.
In the U.S. of Representatives, Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado indicated she will be introducing a companion bill. Sixty members of the House have already agreed to cosponsor the bill.

Of course, the Democrats' bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment, which says, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (Emphasis added.) Congress is not allowed to make any law that restricts someones exercise of their religious beliefs. Period.

Republicans are accusing the Democrats of merely staging the vote as a political stunt.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky asserts that the Dems are simply trying to hold a "show vote" to prepare for the midterm elections. "We'd have a better chance of working our way through the bills that we need to pass if we cut out the show votes and didn't eat up time trying to score points for the fall election," McConnell said.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...7660-287785873

Of course, the Democrats' bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment, which says, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (Emphasis added.) Congress is not allowed to make any law that restricts someones exercise of their religious beliefs. Period.

Wake Up America

Harry Reid: ‘We’re going to do something’ on Hobby Lobby

By SEUNG MIN KIM | 7/7/14 2:57 PM EDT

video at link below

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that Democrats will take up legislation in the “coming weeks” to address last month’s Supreme Court decision that allowed some employers with religious objections to opt out of Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

Democrats on Capitol Hill have overwhelmingly criticized the high court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case and are working to craft a response that would restore the coverage, though no specifics have yet been outlined.

Continue Reading“We’re going to do something about the Hobby Lobby legislation,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday as he ticked off the Senate’s to-do list over the next several weeks.
(Also on POLITICO: Let's talk about 'death panels')

Other priorities, Reid said, include replenishing the highway trust fund, taking up emergency funding for the unaccompanied minors crisis along the southern border, and renewing the charter for the Export-Import Bank.

Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the chamber, is taking the lead on the legislative response to the Hobby Lobby decision. And Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin has announced that he will introduce a measure that would require corporations now exempted from the Obamacare mandate to disclose their coverage policy to their employees and job applicants.
Congressional Republicans have praised the Supreme Court’s ruling as a key victory for religious freedom.

Author:

Seung Min Kim (skim@politico.com | @seungminkim)



Short URL:

http://politi.co/1sofECg

Guess What Hobby Lobby is Forcing on Their Workers Now…

AmandaShea 07/02/2014

Leftists sure have a lot to say about the horrors of Hobby Lobby not paying for their emergency contraception, but in all the shouting one thing they aren’t talking about is the raised wages the arts and crafts store pays their employees. Odd, since minimum wage woes is another hot button issue on the liberal agenda.

The evil folks at Hobby Lobby pay their full-time employees a minimum of $14 an hour. That is nearly double the national average for minimum wage. The hourly wage for part-time employees is also $9.50, according to Young Conservatives.

“We are very fortunate to be able to increase hourly wages for our employees, because we know our company would not be successful without the great work they do each day in our stores across the nation,” said the store’s CEO and founder David Green.

In addition to a healthy wage, the store’s success has allowed them to open more than 30 new stores across the U.S. last year, creating over 1,000 additional jobs.

To be clear, liberals are upset about a company that still offers 16 different types of birth control and pays their employees a minimum wage of $14 an hour. At the wage they are paid, Hobby Lobby workers can still purchase their own emergency contraception if they choose to. that is not covered by their employer’s plan, and still be financially better off than working for a business that does cover them.

As much as some may want to demonize the company for refusing to pay for what it views as abortion, many of those very same people should be happy to hear about Hobby Lobby’s commitment to pay its employees fair, realistic and livable wages that liberals fight for when they aren’t waging war on a company that does just that.

It’s difficult for the left to unearth the truth under the mounds of falsehoods about company and the ruling they’ve dumped over the last two days.

AmandaShea

Amanda Shea is a Libertarian journalist who believes in our country, freedoms, and the pursuit of happiness.
View all posts by AmandaShea →

http://universalfreepress.com/guess-...r-workers-now/