Traverse City Record-Eagle

Other Views

July 9, 2014

Another View: Another 'victory' for corporate personhood

There is nothing particularly conservative about (the July 2) Supreme Court ruling excusing closely held corporations from a federal mandate to provide female employees with insurance coverage for certain forms of contraception.

Flying under the false colors of religious liberty, the five Catholics in the majority insisted they were acting to protect the constitutional rights of two closely held corporations owned and operated by Christian families. But their ruling’s practical import was to expand the majority’s already inflated notion of corporate personhood, effectively extending employers’ dominion over the personal lives and health care choices of female employees.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke for wary employees everywhere when she warned, in a dissent joined in whole or in part by three other justices, that the majority’s deference to the corporation’s junk-science views “invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths.”

Ginsburg speculated that the majority had “entered a minefield” by inviting judges to second-guess other treatment conventions, asking not unreasonably whether the exemption enshrined in the Hobby Lobby case would “extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants; medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus), and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?”

The ruling was a victory for proprietors of the Hobby Lobby craft store chain and Conestoga Wood Specialties. Both companies are controlled by families who say they endeavor to run their businesses on religious principles and argued that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that they provide contraceptive coverage to employees was a violation of their religious belief that certain forms of contraception are tantamount to abortion.

But what about the companies’ employees and their covered dependents who don’t happen to share the owners’ scientifically dubious views? The majority ruling subordinates their right of access to the contraceptive coverage that millions of other similarly situated workers enjoy to the religious whims of their employers.

Text Only