In a landmark decision for religious liberty, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled that Americans don’t give up their right to free exercise of religion when they open a family business. For Christians seeking to integrate faith and life in public as well as private, the decision is a very important development.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell, the Court ruled 5-4 that the Obama administration may not coerce the evangelical Green family of Hobby Lobby and the Mennonite Hahn family of Conestoga Wood Specialties to provide coverage for four potentially life-ending drugs and devices in their employee health plans. A mandate promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Obamacare law would have required them to cover these abortion-inducing drugs.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby affirmed their right not to be coerced against their convictions, on the basis of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Court determined that RFRA applies to closely held family businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, not just individuals or non-profit religious groups. RFRA was enacted in 1993, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress and signed by President Clinton. RFRA stipulates that government cannot substantially burden religious freedom without demonstrating that there is a compelling government interest to do so, and that such an interest has been pursued through the least restrictive means.
RFRA is an appropriate balancing test in a culture with increasingly competing values. It does not allow religious claims to automatically trump any government interest, such as the maintenance of public safety. When conflicts arise between government interests and religious freedom, it simply gives those competing interests a chance to be weighed in court.
In this case, under the Obamacare law the Department of Health and Human Services sought to ensure all women have access to contraception at no cost to them. It pursued that objective by mandating that nearly every employer provide employee heath insurance covering all 20 FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices, including four that have the potential to end unborn human life.
The Greens and Hahns do not object to all birth control, but covering these four potentially life-ending means would have violated their beliefs. The Court concluded that the government could have used other means to advance its policy objective of providing no-cost contraception to women rather than coercing these religious employers. Regardless, women will continue to have the freedom to choose the full range of FDA-approved contraception in the wake of this decision.
The Greens and Hahns were not alone in objecting to the mandate, and the outcry against it has been significant. Over the course of several years, the Obama administration made announcements ostensibly accommodating such religious objections.
But the extent of these changes was to shuffle the paperwork, not to resolve the fundamental problem from which these religious groups sought relief: involvement in practices they find morally objectionable. As a result of the administration’s failure to take these religious liberty claims seriously, 100 court cases have been filed by more than 300 plaintiffs challenging the HHS mandate.
These cases fall into two categories: 49 involve for-profit family businesses such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. Yesterday’s case makes clear that their religious liberty claims are sound. The for-profit cases have been on hold while the Supreme Court considered the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases. Now the lower courts will evaluate the claims of other for-profit companies in light of the Hobby Lobby decision to determine whether or not those companies succeed on the merits of their RFRA claims.
Thus far 51 cases have been brought by non-profit religious groups, including Wheaton College, Tyndale, and Houston Baptist University. These are moving through the courts on a separate track from the for-profit cases and are also expected to reach the Supreme Court. Hours after the Hobby Lobby decision yesterday, two federal courts granted temporary injunctions to six Catholic organizations so that the mandate would not be enforced against them as of July 1 while their cases proceed. Barring this emergency relief, failure to comply with the mandate could have resulted in fines of up to $100 per day per employee.
One need not have exactly the same scruples about birth control to agree with the Little Sisters of the Poor—a group of nuns caring for the elderly, also involved in a challenge to the HHS mandate—that they should not have to include such coverage in their employee health plan. Nor do all Americans have to concur with the Hahns and the Greens that ella and Plan-B, two of the FDA-approved contraceptives that can act to end the life of an embryo, are morally objectionable to conclude that the government should not coerce them to be involved in providing them.
But for Christian believers who do share concerns about reproductive ethics and abortion—not to mention those who prize the freedom to launch or be a part of a family business that seeks to integrate faith and calling—this week’s decision from the Supreme Court is a welcome signal. A majority of the Court respected religious freedom, relying on a law that has served our nation well for the past two decades.
RFRA along with other common sense policies and constitutional principles are designed to balance competing interests in our free society. After all, room for faith is part of tolerance, too.
Is there enough evidence for us to believe the Gospels?
In an age of faith deconstruction and skepticism about the Bible’s authority, it’s common to hear claims that the Gospels are unreliable propaganda. And if the Gospels are shown to be historically unreliable, the whole foundation of Christianity begins to crumble.
