The Supreme Court and
the HHS Mandate
Like everyone interested in the freedom of religion and with
an understanding of the potential impact on the future of our country, I was
greatly relieved to see Hobby Lobby vindicated by the Supreme Court Monday in
its battle against the HHS mandate. By
the narrowest 5-4 margin, sanity held the day, but there are many things that
still concern me greatly.
The first is the limited scope of
the court’s decision. Fox News reported
that: “The court stressed that its
ruling on Monday applies only to corporations that are under the control of
just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the
business and its owners.” Why? How can
the court justify any business being forced to pay for the services demanded by
the HHS mandate? And upon whose judgment
will we rely to determine which companies qualify?
The dissent sounds at times as
though the sky is falling, and that civilization is under attack by the ruling. Is it not true that contraception /
abortifacient coverage has never been required until Obamacare’s putrid
mandate? Somehow women were not left on
the streets to die. Framing this whole
debate around the issue of women’s health is incredibly misleading to begin
with. The claim that the court’s ruling
will somehow have disastrous consequences is simply ridiculous. The one part of the dissent which I pray is
true is the statement: “Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic
extends to corporations of any size, public or private. Little
doubt that RFRA claims will
proliferate.”
The biggest problem with the
decision is that the court gave any credence to the idea that the government
can force any employers to provide morally objectionable coverage for its
employees. Don’t get me wrong, I am
elated that Hobby Lobby won its case.
But to think that we have won a decisive blow for religious freedom is naïve. The battle is far from over.
