Today’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (formerly Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby) dealt a serious blow to a woman’s right to comprehensive healthcare. In a closely divided 5-4 decision, the court held that the contraceptive mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which requires employer health plans provide comprehensive coverage for women’s health, violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The case arose when two for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, sued the government arguing that covering certain forms of contraception, including emergency contraception and IUDs, violated their religious beliefs. In striking down the contraceptive mandate, the court has given employers the right to decide whether women have access to affordable contraceptives, along with what type and in what circumstances.
RFRA is a federal statute stating that the government may not pass a law substantially burdening the practice of religion unless the government has a compelling interest in the issue the law addresses and the law is the least restrictive means possible for achieving that interest.
Justice Alito, in his opinion for the Court, writes that even though providing women with comprehensive healthcare through their employer’s insurance plan may be a compelling state interest, the government failed to use the least restrictive ways to further that interest by passing the contraceptive mandate. He argues, for example, that the government could pay for the coverage gap. This of course simply passes the cost along to the public, making taxpayers financially responsible for the religious choices of a for-profit corporation. He further suggests that the exception for religious non-profits in the contraceptive mandate could be extended to for-profit business. However, later in his opinion he declines to decide whether the alternative he just suggested would survive under his RFRA analysis.
Justice Alito also glosses over the arguments raised by Justice Ginsburg in her powerfully written dissent, including that the contraceptive mandate does not constitute a substantial burden. She points out that neither company is required to purchase or provide the contraceptives. Rather, they only pay insurers to provide their employees with comprehensive health coverage; their employees in turn make private decisions about their health, including what medication to take with guidance from a licensed physician – not their employer’s religious beliefs.
In addition to favoring the rights of corporations over the health care needs of their female employees, Justice Alito’s opinion may invite challenges from certain types of corporations arguing that they have religious objections of their own – for example, to insurance coverage of immunizations or blood transfusions or anti-depressants, or even to hiring women or people of different religions.
In Maine, however, our legislature has shown a strong commitment to protecting the rights of all Mainers. The legislature rejected a bill this February modeled on RFRA that would have allowed religious beliefs as a justification to violate existing laws. The federal Constitution, the Maine Constitution, the Maine Human Rights Act and other state laws already vigorously protect freedom of religion in Maine. By rejecting the bill, the legislature insured that religious rights would remain protected without trampling on the rights of others. We hope the rest of the country will follow Maine’s example in not allowing discrimination in the name of religion
