Click here for a copy of the article discussed below
This March 29th article in The Economist discusses the limits of the religious liberty clause in the Constitution in relation to the Sebelius v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v Sebelius cases currently before the Supreme Court. The case comes after the Christian owners of both companies debated publicly the section of the Affordable Care Act requiring all religiously-unaffiliated companies to provide free, federally-approved contraceptives to their employees. The lawyers representing these corporations cite the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed overwhelmingly in Congress, saying that a person should be exempt from a law if it significantly imposes on that person’s religious liberty. So far, the Supreme Court justices have remained divided across party lines, the conservative judges favoring the corporations and the liberal ones leaning toward the federal government.
http://atheistoasis.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hobbylobby.jpg
There is one huge issue brought about by the ability for a
corporation to declare itself of one specific religion, such as is the case
with Hobby Lobby and Conestaga with Christianity. This problem goes back to the
famous case involving Citizens United that gave free speech and therefore other
First Amendment rights to corporations, legally making them people in the eyes
of the Constitution. By defending their respective companies on the basis of
religious liberty, the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestaga essentially are saying
that their corporations are Christian, or at least a representative of those
religions that prohibit contraceptive use. This misrepresents the fact that
both companies are diverse in the religious representation among their employees.
This would deny many employees access to the contraceptive due to them under
the Affordable Care Act, and if the Supreme Court were to do its duty, it
should declare that a corporation has no right to declare an official religion
if it has no federally-recognized religious status.
I have to disagree with you here Aaron, on the grounds that contraceptives are not a right. They are not needed for health or well being, but only for pleasure without consequences. It is not the company's place to pay for this, but if someone wants them they should pay for them.
ReplyDeleteJim, I would disagree with you. 99% of Catholic women in America use contraceptives. Obviously, there are a lot more than 1% of Catholic women who are married. Therefore, a good number of married Catholic women are using contraceptives. They do this NOT for "pleasure without consequences" but to contribute to a healthy sex life with their partner and not have 17 kids and counting. Secondly, contraceptives are huge players in the war against STDs. In Africa, there is an STD epidemic, primarily because the majority of the population adheres either to Islam or Catholicism, which both ban contraceptives. Condoms have been proven to be very effective in preventing STD infection yet Africa has not caught on yet due to their beliefs. Finally, the use of contraceptives contribute to sexism in many impoverished nations. When a women has many kids, such as is evident in the birth rates of less-developed countries, she is unable to work because she must stay at home to care for the children. This creates an atmosphere in which women are perceived to have the role as loyal housewife, and a patriarchy is born.
DeleteComapanies should not have to pay for somebody else's healthy sex life. If they want to have it, it is up to them to get it, they should't rely on the owner to pay for a healthy sex life. Especially if that owner has beliefs against using contraceptives.
ReplyDelete