Let’s review the tortured verbiage that passes for logic in today’s majority opinion in the “Hobby Lobby” case, shall we?
This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.
This is extraordinary. What this statement says is that when it comes to religious beliefs, what you think about contraception is special, elevated above other, apparently “less sincere” religious beliefs. Lots of people have issues due to religious beliefs with blood transfusions, or organ transplants, or vaccines. However, lest people become concerned that this decision will allow similar denials of medical care within those realms, the majority essentially says, “Hey now, let’s not get crazy”. Only regulating lady parts is okay here.
Another favorite is this:
This argument dodges the question that RFRA presents (whether the HHS mandate imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the objecting parties to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs) and instead addresses a very different question that the federal courts have no business addressing (whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable). The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. Arrogating the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, HHS and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed.
It can certainly be dangerous to allow the government to decide what beliefs are “flawed” and what beliefs are not. I certainly understand that. However, the court has had no problem determining when a belief has strayed across the line in the past: few people think, for example, that racial discrimination due to sincerely held religious beliefs is acceptable. What is troubling here is that these beliefs about contraception fly in the face of scientific knowledge and have a real detrimental impact on almost 50 percent of the population. In cases like these, I have no problem telling the plaintiffs that their beliefs are “flawed”, because they are.
The fact that the majority decision, affecting only women, was written by five men is a headline that writes itself; as is the stark contrast in how often women are mentioned in the majority and minority opinions. The majority opinion doesn’t even mention pregnancy! Sadly, though, I’m not surprised that the abstract considerations for the beliefs of a corporation outweigh the real impacts on thousands of female employees, many of which probably aren’t getting the large paychecks that the owners get. As Justice Ginsburg points out, some forms of contraception such as an IUD can cost a month’s salary for people who make minimum wage: this is not an abstract issue to them.
It may sound like I’m being flippant about religious beliefs. I’m not trying to be. I’m quite familiar with the arguments. I went to Catholic schools for 13 years. Although I don’t agree with just about any of those beliefs, at least I can see where some of them are coming from. There are two things I never did understand at all, however: opposition to homosexuality and opposition to contraception. I can’t wrap my head around why somebody would be opposed to birth control, I just can’t. Again, the beliefs are so ethereal, while the consequences are so real, it’s just mind-boggling to me.
And that is the worst part about this decision: that five people who have never had to worry about getting pregnant, being lucky enough to have a job that pays for maternity leave, or things like polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis, have made a decision that greatly impacts people who do. Because I guess they do know what’s more important.