I have spent time this week pondering the Hobby Lobby case, its impact, and what it really means. The case centered around a family owned and operated craft supply company. The company pays its employees roughly twice the federal minimum wage on average. The provided healthcare to their employees long before the so-called Affordable Care Act was ever conceived in the minds of the current administration. This coverage also included contraceptive coverage.
That may come as a shock to many watcher's of main stream media coverage. In fact, so extensive are the options on this coverage that it included sixteen of the twenty products mandated by the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That's right this whole fight is not a binary one. It is about a total of four products that Hobby Lobby objected to on the basis of how they functioned and how that impacted their closely held religious beliefs.
Hobby Lobby asked for and accommodation on this subject, requesting to not be forced to pay for products that violate their conscience. The department of Health and Human Services refused. And then Hobby Lobby sued, citing that the ACA violated their rights under the Religious Rights Restoration Act, that was signed into law under President Clinton. And the court agreed with Hobby Lobby's stance.
Some substantial histrionics, hyperbole, and overblown hand wringing has taken place in the wake of the decision. Some of it from a sitting Supreme Court Justice, and that I was surprised to read. Some pundits have likened it to slavery and apartheid. Others have opined the nonsensical straw dog question comparing this decision to the Christian Science stance on medicine. A simple read of the relevant legislation indicates this line of logic is a ridiculous position to opine, as the act does not provide for this.
Allow me to be clear, all the histrionics and hyperbole set aside, this case was properly heard and rightly decided. In essence the decision says that closely held religious beliefs are not trumped by administrative edicts. It says that the company owners can make choices in their healthcare package, and the underlying decision making process that are informed by their faith. And that those choices cannot be revoked, countermanded, or otherwise supplanted by bureaucratic fiat.
In essence, this case is about freedom of choice. It tells us everyone has a right to make a choice. Employers can select the components of the healthcare package as the burden of their faith informs them. Employees can make a choice to avail themselves of products and services, not covered by their health plan. Employees can make the choice to seek other employment if they feel strongly enough. Consumers can make the choice to shop at Hobby Lobby or not based on the dictates of their own preferences.
This entire equation of choice will work itself out without governmental interference. This is what is meant by the 'least restrictive method' to resolve conflicts under the Religious Rights Restoration Act. This case was clearly a high point for the proper use of judicial discretion and restraint.
And for those of you that call this and interference in reproductive health service decisions of women. Let me say this, it is not an interference at all. A woman and her doctor can still make choices in the patient's best interest. Not a single product was banned. Not a single procedure was removed from availability. This decision merely says an employer doesn't have to pay for it as a part of the health plan if they find the choice to be against the tenets of their faith.
No woman at Hobby Lobby was denied services if they are needed. No woman's so-called 'right to choose' was negatively impacted. No doctor was told they can't perform procedure 'X', or prescribe medicine 'Y'. Access to all of the underlying products and services was preserved. In the final estimation, the histrionics are all unfounded. At the end of the day, freedom of choice was preserved for everyone, from the owner paying for the plan to the members of their staff seeking to exercise a choice. And that is a decision worthy of our founding principles.
That may come as a shock to many watcher's of main stream media coverage. In fact, so extensive are the options on this coverage that it included sixteen of the twenty products mandated by the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That's right this whole fight is not a binary one. It is about a total of four products that Hobby Lobby objected to on the basis of how they functioned and how that impacted their closely held religious beliefs.
Hobby Lobby asked for and accommodation on this subject, requesting to not be forced to pay for products that violate their conscience. The department of Health and Human Services refused. And then Hobby Lobby sued, citing that the ACA violated their rights under the Religious Rights Restoration Act, that was signed into law under President Clinton. And the court agreed with Hobby Lobby's stance.
Some substantial histrionics, hyperbole, and overblown hand wringing has taken place in the wake of the decision. Some of it from a sitting Supreme Court Justice, and that I was surprised to read. Some pundits have likened it to slavery and apartheid. Others have opined the nonsensical straw dog question comparing this decision to the Christian Science stance on medicine. A simple read of the relevant legislation indicates this line of logic is a ridiculous position to opine, as the act does not provide for this.
Allow me to be clear, all the histrionics and hyperbole set aside, this case was properly heard and rightly decided. In essence the decision says that closely held religious beliefs are not trumped by administrative edicts. It says that the company owners can make choices in their healthcare package, and the underlying decision making process that are informed by their faith. And that those choices cannot be revoked, countermanded, or otherwise supplanted by bureaucratic fiat.
In essence, this case is about freedom of choice. It tells us everyone has a right to make a choice. Employers can select the components of the healthcare package as the burden of their faith informs them. Employees can make a choice to avail themselves of products and services, not covered by their health plan. Employees can make the choice to seek other employment if they feel strongly enough. Consumers can make the choice to shop at Hobby Lobby or not based on the dictates of their own preferences.
This entire equation of choice will work itself out without governmental interference. This is what is meant by the 'least restrictive method' to resolve conflicts under the Religious Rights Restoration Act. This case was clearly a high point for the proper use of judicial discretion and restraint.
And for those of you that call this and interference in reproductive health service decisions of women. Let me say this, it is not an interference at all. A woman and her doctor can still make choices in the patient's best interest. Not a single product was banned. Not a single procedure was removed from availability. This decision merely says an employer doesn't have to pay for it as a part of the health plan if they find the choice to be against the tenets of their faith.
No woman at Hobby Lobby was denied services if they are needed. No woman's so-called 'right to choose' was negatively impacted. No doctor was told they can't perform procedure 'X', or prescribe medicine 'Y'. Access to all of the underlying products and services was preserved. In the final estimation, the histrionics are all unfounded. At the end of the day, freedom of choice was preserved for everyone, from the owner paying for the plan to the members of their staff seeking to exercise a choice. And that is a decision worthy of our founding principles.
RSS Feed
