RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $6000Goal: $6000
Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Ye church of the Hobby Lobby
Part of a series on the
US Constitution
Const.gif
Standards of review
Other legal theories
Amendments
I - II - III - IV - V - XIV
Defining moments in law

Interpretation
Issues
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
573 U.S. ___
Decided: June 30, 2014

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is a huge victory for the Christian right landmark decision made by the Supreme Court in 2014 to allow certain corporations to claim religious exemptions to laws, so long as they "strongly hold that belief." The case used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to preempt part of the Affordable Care Act. It is important to note that this decision only extends to closely held corporations.[1] For those wondering, a closely held corporation is essentially defined by the IRS as a company in which at least 50% of shares are owned by no more than 5 people.[2] Unsurprisingly this ruling has led to a number of negative reactions primarily from radical left-wing hate groups groups that advocate a separation of church and state. Perhaps the best expression of dissatisfaction with the ruling actually came from Justice Ruth Ginsburg's official statement of dissent.

Implications[edit]

Of course there is the obvious conclusion that many women will be denied contraceptive coverage under their insurance because of this ruling, but there is also a threat that this decision could establish precedent that would enable companies to dodge their responsibilities exercise their SCOTUS-given religious rights in other areas. Rulings related to other forms of contraception were ordered reconsidered or appeals denied by the Supreme Court.[3] There's an open question as to whether people needing other forms of healthcare will be pushed under the bus to keep the religionists happy.

Quotes from Justice Ginsburg[edit]

All of these quotes can be found in the official court document starting on page 60.[4]

  • "Would the exemption… extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]… Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
  • "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
  • "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

Mines in the minefield[edit]

  • Three days after the ruling, lawyers representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay filed a lawsuit against the prison for preventing its prisoners for partaking in communal prayer during Ramadan.[5]
  • Citing the ruling, a judge excused a FLDS member from testifying in court in a case about child labor who claimed it violated his religious freedom.[6]
  • In a hilarious and ironic turnabout, The Satanic Temple has reported that it is considering lawsuits against states which require "informed consent" forms in order to receive abortions, stating that since the forms employ factual errors and are unnecessary, they violate their religious principles of reason and science.[7]

References[edit]