The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision exempts closely-held corporations from laws they object to on religious grounds under the Religion Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The decision builds on the extension of free speech protection to corporations in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) by giving corporations rights previously accorded exclusively to people. Supporters of the decision include Dr. Robert Jeffress, a pastor and Fox News Contributor, who writes that the contraceptive mandate violates the Free Exercise Clause by coercing corporations to violate their religious beliefs and that the mainstream religious opposition to abortion distinguishes the issue from less qualified potential objections to other mandates. Supporters also claim that government
…show more content…
Dr. Jeffress claims that Hobby Lobby does not obstruct women’s right to obtain abortions or health care, and that the government compels Hobby Lobby to become complicit in a religiously objectionable act. This relates to the the Court’s argument that the contraceptive mandate does not fulfill RFRA’s requirement for the least restrictive means test. However, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2004), the Court, speaking on speech restriction under the First Amendment, describes the least restrictive means test as based on “available, effective alternatives.” Justice Ginsburg writes, “the Government has shown there is no less restrictive, equally effective means.” The need for easily accessible contraceptives would not be met with a program funded and administered separately from existing employee-based benefits. Therefore, the Court-offered alternative of having the government fund contraceptives would not fulfill the compelling interests that Congress sought to accomplish through the mandate and does not qualify as an available and less restrictive alternative. Exemption on these grounds also contradicts a precedent the Court has established through cases including Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (1985), in which the Court struck down a law accommodating employees’ observance of the Sabbath due to the burden imposed on the employer, stating that accommodations to religious beliefs must not significantly impinge upon the interests of third
Dr. Jeffress claims that Hobby Lobby does not obstruct women’s right to obtain abortions or health care, and that the government compels Hobby Lobby to become complicit in a religiously objectionable act. This relates to the the Court’s argument that the contraceptive mandate does not fulfill RFRA’s requirement for the least restrictive means test. However, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2004), the Court, speaking on speech restriction under the First Amendment, describes the least restrictive means test as based on “available, effective alternatives.” Justice Ginsburg writes, “the Government has shown there is no less restrictive, equally effective means.” The need for easily accessible contraceptives would not be met with a program funded and administered separately from existing employee-based benefits. Therefore, the Court-offered alternative of having the government fund contraceptives would not fulfill the compelling interests that Congress sought to accomplish through the mandate and does not qualify as an available and less restrictive alternative. Exemption on these grounds also contradicts a precedent the Court has established through cases including Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (1985), in which the Court struck down a law accommodating employees’ observance of the Sabbath due to the burden imposed on the employer, stating that accommodations to religious beliefs must not significantly impinge upon the interests of third