The Hobby Lobby chain of retail stores is bringing suit against the new federal requirement to provide free contraception, including morning-after abortifacients.* RealityCheck.org opines that
There are a lot of problems with the Hobby Lobby plaintiffs’ theory of the case as detailed by the federal government. To start, the business plaintiffs are all for-profit, secular organizations that provide secular goods and services. They can’t, as the Supreme Court held in United States v. Lee, claim to exercise religion as a means of avoiding complying with laws that regulate commercial activity.
“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”
As far as the individual plaintiffs are concerned, they can’t jump in and out of the corporation’s legal structure to suddenly impose their personal religious beliefs on the employees of that corporation. As individuals they chose to organize their business as a corporation to provide personal/professional legal distinctions and protections. That principle of legal separation must remain consistent or it is meaningless. This is a fundamental concept of corporate entity law and one that is repeatedly overlooked in the rush to try and opt-out of the contraception mandate.
Hobby Lobby for its part is making the claim that this is a matter of conscience and of religious freedom. Some thoughts of my own on this:
1. When, as “followers of a particular sect,” the principals at Hobby Lobby chose to incorporate, they did it on the understanding that incorporation would place no demands upon them contrary to conscience.
2. Though I’m not an attorney and do not know the context of United States v. Lee, nevertheless it seems entirely out of line for the United States to superimpose statutory schemes upon corporate leaders’ consciences after the fact.
3. Hobby Lobby’s leaders’ beliefs are being represented here as those of “a particular sect” and as “personal religious beliefs,” obscuring the fact that large proportions of Constitutionally protected religions share those same beliefs.
4. For the federal government to require all members of historic and long-standing religions to violate their beliefs in this way, is for the government to violate the integrity of those very religions and their beliefs.
5. If case law requires the separation of church and business, that could hardly trump the Constitutional protection of religion from government interference.
The late Chuck Colson said the HHS contraception mandate was the greatest threat to religious freedom our generation has seen. He was right. It must be opposed. Catholic-run entities were the first to object to it, but this is affects all Christians. We need to join forces on this.
*I am aware of disagreements over whether these drugs should actually be regarded as causing abortions. As long as it is credibly, plausibly true that they do, however, they must be treated as if they actually do. Anyone who respects the right to life must err on the side of caution to maintain ethical integrity in this matter.