As previously discussed in an earlier blog, the United States Health and Human services unveiled a new policy known as the HHS Mandate earlier this year. The HHS requires that all companies which provide private health care insurance also provide coverage for employees to receive contraceptive drugs. Of course, this new policy hasn't been so easily accepted by everyone.
Hobby Lobby in particular has chosen to defy the HHS Mandate on moral grounds. The company’s Christian founders claim that the policy violates their Biblical beliefs, and that offering abortion-inducing drugs to their employees would go against their pro-life principles. While not against all forms of contraception, the company is opposed to providing certain drugs such as the morning after pill, which they view as just another form of abortion. However, any company that refuses to comply with the mandate will be charged some serious fines. For Hobby Lobby, this could mean up to $1.3 million for every day they fail to provide the required insurance. Despite the mounting cost, the company has joined some 52 other lawsuits against the HHS Mandate, but currently theirs has reached the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Recently the court ruled that Hobby Lobby’s appeal would be decided by nine judges, instead of the usual 3-judge panel, and has even agreed to hear the appeal on an expedited basis. Although some say that this might not be in Hobby Lobby's favor, and that employing all nine judges may just add to the finality of the court's decision should they rule against the company's appeal.
U.S. District Court judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn recently issued the dismissal of a similar appeal made by the ETWN Global Catholic Television Network. ETWN filed the lawsuit for the same reasons as Hobby Lobby, but were turned down based on the court’s reluctance to make a ruling in light of future revisions the HHS has yet to receive.
Despite ETWN’s setback, Hobby Lobby still has a chance at success. Already they've garnered over 37,000 supporters on Facebook alone, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has even promoted a Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day (Jan. 5) to help support the company’s decision.This, combined with a decent amount of Divine intervention, definitely gives the company hope.
In light of their reasons for taking such a stand, Hobby Lobby has every right to fight the HHS policy. As a company that makes no secret of its being founded on Christian values it's understandable why they would be against certain contraceptive drugs, and therefore should not be obligated to supply such to their employees. Based on that line of reasoning, as well as the unfairness of the HHS Mandate requirements being forced on any faith-based company, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should definitely rule in Hobby Lobby's favor.
I could not agree more with you Abigail, it is absolutely absurd mandating this type of intrusive request. If a company has a clear reasoning not to cover this type of health coverage then they shouldn’t have to. This is very similar to revision of the pledge of allegiance. So because this affected some of the public and their religious beliefs of praying to another GOD it was revised. Therefore, I believe the same thing such happen here; the law needs to be revised immediately. Every company has the right to offer or opt out of offering contraceptive drugs as part of their health care coverage.
ReplyDeleteAlso issuing a fine to any company that refuses is insane, I don't see the logic behind this except the fact that the government just wants to make A LOT of money off of people's personal beliefs. But I can almost bet money that Hobby Lobby will get shut down just the ETWN Global Catholic Television Network.
In “On Moral Grounds:Revisited,”Abigail Quintanilla discusses how a government-issued contraceptive mandate, a law that would require companies to supply woman's’ reproductive health care to their employees, is discriminative towards corporations that are opposed to contraceptives for religious reasons. Abigail highlights Hobby Lobby’s case in particular, stating that it is unfair to impose this mandate when it would cover prescriptions and procedures such as abortions and the “morning after” pill that go against the company founder’s Christian beliefs. While her argument is strongly stated, I believe it is weakened by her supporting links going to religiously charged websites rather than neutral, third party sites that explore the issue as a political argument (as the courts must). I also feel that the idea of the mandate being religiously discriminatory is not a strong argument. The company’s founders themselves may not believe in the reproductive rights of a woman, but that is no reason to refuse healthcare to their employees. Just like companies cannot refuse to hire applicants due to sexual orientation, political doctrine, and religious beliefs (or lack thereof), companies should not be able to refuse a government-mandated healthcare plan. The religious beliefs of the company’s founder do not necessarily apply to all of company employees, and just as they cannot discriminate against new hires, that same truth should hold through in all aspects of the job. It is unjust to refuse healthcare opportunities to employees based on purely religious differences, and for that reason I disagree with the notion that Hobby Lobby has a fighting chance when they bring their case to the courts. This, as much as many would like to disagree, is not a religious discrimination—it is a push for the basic human right to healthcare.
ReplyDelete