Do Corporations Have The Same Religious Rights As People?

Under that banner the Fox News Blog “The Five” (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/2014/03/26/do-corporations-have-same-religious-rights-people) conducted a discussion about the Supreme Court Hearing held the 25th of March 2014, on the Petition for a Writ Of Certiriori -the legal term for a request for a decision on a pending case- on the case “Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al Petitioners, vs Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, et al (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc)

The matter in dispute arose when Hobby Lobby Stores discovered that under the Health Plan provided their employees and because of the effects of the Affordable Care Act of 2011, their insurance had to provide a full range of coverage for contraception methods, including oral contraceptive pills, diaphragms, injections and implants, emergency contraceptive drugs and intrauterine devices. They did not want to pay for these measures because it infringed on their religious beliefs and sought to be granted an exception to the implementation of those parts of the Act that ran against their religious beliefs.  Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, exemptions have been granted to non profit religious organizations, Hobby Lobby wanted the same type of exemptions, except for the fact that they are a for-profit commercial organization.

Hobby Lobby Stores is a corporation described in Wikipedia as, “a separate legal entity registered through a process established by law. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees and shareholders” This is the first time in history when a commercial institution, a for-profit company argued they could be exempt from commercial regulations on religious grounds. (Rachel Maddow show, “Contraception? You’ll have to ask your boss” 3/24/2014)

The Question presented to the Court in this instance “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Of 1993 (RFRA), 42 USC. 2000bb et seq, provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further compelling governmental interest….The question presented is whether RFRA allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.”

The RFRA is not the only Act involved in the discussion of the issues here, we have first and foremost the US Constitution, Article III, Amendment I. “The Americans with disabilities Act of 1990” “The Anti-Injucttion Act U.S.C. 7421”, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” “The Dictionary Act also, The Employee Retirement Income Security At of 1974,” “The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care” aka “Obama Care,” and “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.” There are additional several statutes and a long list of cases cited which need not occupy us here because the purpose of this “Article” is to sort out the issues in general to understand them and project their effect on us as women, as employees in the labor market.

What is very clear to everybody is that the respondent employers in the instant case want to be able to deny important and needed health care protection through their health insurance under the legal fiction (I have never seen a corporation in my church on Sunday’s) that corporations hold religious beliefs.  The respondent wants to seek cover under exemptions granted to non-profit corporations engaged in religious work.

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights, First Amendment, reads as follows…”Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” this is hollowed ground indeed, and Hobby Lobby Stores is seeking refuge under its cover.  There have been several attempts by ultra conservative groups to pass laws seeking relief under this Bill of Rights, the last one was a law passed in Arizona last month which would permit any merchant the right to refuse service to anybody if such person’s attitude and beliefs were contrary to those held by the merchant.  The whiplash which this  bill caused coming from all over the country, caused the Governor of Arizona to veto the bill.  This action by Hobby Lobby is really an end run on the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), adding more exemptions to the bill, being a forerunner of more to come, practically gutting the bill.

The Five at Fox News exchanged opinions about the merits of the action.  Some said that perhaps one of the solutions would be for the corporation to not offer health insurance to  its employees. The problem, contrary to Fox News beliefs, health insurance is not a gift from the corporation to its employees; it is part of a compensation package earned by employees and in most cases employees pay part of the premiums for the policy. Furthermore, the services or coverage to be denied to the employees would affect adversely the people least able to cope with it. Emily Spitzer,executive director of the National Health Law Program says, “pregnancy … is a serious medical condition that puts a significant strain on your body … Every single major medical association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend contraception as a “standard of care” for women … because the benefits of contraception far outweigh its costs, both fiscally and physically, the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) required all insurance plans to include contraception as a covered “preventive service” meaning women no longer need to pay an additional deductible or co-pay to access it.” Ms. Spitzer, also points out that “the Hobby Lobby Stores had previously offered health insurance plans that included contraception … and operated in several of the 28 states that had required as a matter of state law, contraception coverage before the “Affordable Care Act.’” She also points out that not a single Fortune 500 company, nor the US Chamber of Commerce have joined Hobby Lobby (upon discovery of their religious belief), in this crusade. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=emily-spitzer)

It is interesting also to note that in MSNBC’s Chris Hayes show, of 25 March 2014, the first intervention of Justice Sotomayor addressing the respondent’s attorney, she said, “How does a corporation exercise religion?”  Indeed, how do they do it?  As I pointed out earlier, I have never seen the corporation in church on Sunday’s.

Justice Sotomayor also asked “Is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives or does it include blood transfusions, vaccines? For some religions products made of pork. Is any claim under your theory that has a religious basis, could an employer preclude the use of those items as well?” I say, YES, where do we stop?

Rachel Maddow in her blog also brought out the participation of Justice Kagan on the issue of contraception and blood transfusion, and Justice Kagan brought up the legal issue whether corporations can use their economic leverage to impose their own moral views on their employees. When talking about methods of contraception and referring to the “IUD.” Justice Scalia commented, “this doesn’t cost anything.” Maddow remarked that an “IUD” can cost a month salary of women. Yet, it is Justice Scalia and other male Justices who are a majority, the ones to decide the case.

The owner of Hobby Lobby, the Green family believe that “human life begins at conception that is when sperm fertilizes an egg.”  They, therefore, oppose contraceptives on the ground that they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg; thus, they initiated this legal action contending that the requirements that the Hobby Lobby group health plan cover all forms of FDA-approved contraceptives violates The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 “which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling government interest.” They contend that they are entitled to an exemption.  Again, the argument that “human life begins at conception” has surfaced in several states where an amendment has been introduced to the States Constitution recognize “personhood” that is  to give constitutional rights to fetuses same as individuals.  Colorado recently rejected such amendment to their Constitution. This is a National movement sponsored by “Personhood USA,”  after passing a law in Wisconsin requiring women to get ultrasounds before having abortions. They renewed a push for the passage of a “personhood” amendment. A spokesperson for “Personhood USA” stated, “the personhood amendment seeks to end abortion in Wisconsin, not to regulate or restrict it.”

There seems to be a national effort by conservative groups to assault women’s rights to determine their health reproductive choices. State Legislatures controlled by Republicans have adopted a series of measures in their states that severe limits the access of women to clinics that provide advice on contraception and abortion, particularly to those with scarce means. This war on women by Republican males is difficult to understand in view of the fact that they need the women’s vote to win any kind of election, with their attitude and actions I do not see many women running to join their party

I personally watch the news and inevitably feel that these actions -the Green’s legal action- the Republican Legislatures, have diminished me as a person.  Imagine that my employer would get to decide what kind of health care I get, specially in those areas that are the most private and personal to an individual.  My mind just doesn’t get it; it is so outrageous. We must be moving at least 50 to 60 years back in time. Women should be up in arms about these threats to their rights. Republicans cannot get away with it. If women talk to their male partners, they would constitute a solid majority in this country. Come election time any representative who supports any of these anti-women issues should be redlined by women. Let’s get them out by replacing them with candidates who clearly and specifically support women’s issues particularly in these areas we have examined here. We women have personhood, and we should not let anybody trample with our rights. 

“Controversial DOJ nominee fails to clear Senate test vote”

Under that title, Fox news reported that Debo Adegbile’s nomination, as head of the Ciivil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice, was stalled as it failed to get enough votes to advance to a final vote.

The great sin committed by Mr. Adegbile was having represented legally Abu Jamal, a man who in 1981 killed police officer Daniel Faulkner.  Abu Jamal had gone through trial process, had been convicted and sentenced to death.  It was an appeal to this death sentence that the NAACP Legal Defense Fund accepted Abu Jamal as a client, and Mr. Adegbile as a member of the Legal Defense Fund filed some briefs on his behalf.  He was successful; thus, the death sentence was overturned although his conviction stands. Jamal was to remain in jail for life without possibility of parole.

Fox news showcased the opposition against confirmation of the appointee by the widow of the slained officer.  Also, opposed were the Fraternal Order of Police, and all the Republican Senators, plus seven Democratic Senators who joined them to reject the nominee. Fox news bloggers called Adegbile a “cop killer cuddler.”

The issue appears to be that Mr. Adegbile as an attorney at law and member of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, undertook to file some briefs on behalf of Jamal. He did not help in the trial stage but much later, after his conviction and sentence, while he was in death row an appeal to that death sentence.  It is a basic constitutional right of any person accused of a crime to have legal representation.  Attorney Adegbile just did the job his organization undertook.  To deny the nomination to an extremely capable attorney on that basis in my opinion is un-American. It goes against everything we stand for.

It seems more of a political ploy than a principled action.  Fox news reported that the Chairmen of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus called the nomination itself “an embarrassment for President Obama”, and blast “vulnerable Democrats running in 2014” who  voted yes. Political gamesmanship, rather than qualifications appear to be the real reason behind this shameful vote in the Senate.

Looking at our history,  John Adams, (1797-1801) second President of the United States who was an ardent defender of the colonists legal right to rebel against England. However, in 1770 he was the attorney defending the British soldiers, who killed five colonists, in the “Boston Massacre,” yet that was no bar for him to be nominated and elected President of the United States.

Moreover, recently in our history, we find Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1961-1991), who after graduating from Howard Law School joined the legal staff of the NAACP and later became its Chief Counsel.  His most important case as an attorney involved his representation before the Supreme Court in the case Brown vs Board of Education, which he won, Marshall was opposed to the death penalty and supported the rights of criminal defendants. He was brilliant lawyer appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals and later President Johnson nominated him to the Supreme Court where he served until 1991 when he retired. Marshall’s views and advocacy against the death penalty and the rights of criminal defendants did not affect his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Additionally, not long ago in our history, we have present Chief US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, while a practicing Attorney offered to act as a pro-bono lawyer to Florida serial killer, John E. Ferguson, who had killed eight people in 1977-1978 and who ultimately was executed in October 2012.  Justice Roberts offer to represent this killer was never a reason to deny him an appointment to the highest Court of the land.

In the case of Mr. Adegbile, Fox news presents their bloggers who called Adegbile as a “cop killer cuddler” and representing a “non-repentant cop killer.” Such representations are not only unfair but vicious.  

Attorney Adegbile has argued successfully two cases before the United States Supreme Court.  These cases were related to the Civil Rights Voting Act, the Act that prohibits voting discrimination.  He is considered the top expert in the country on these laws and it is precisely this area of the Law which he had been nominated to head, the Civil Rights Department of the Department of Justice.  At a time when voting restriction laws are cropping up in many states, it is very important to have in the Department of Justice an able administrator, or is this perhaps the reasons Republicans are so opposed to the appointment of Mr. Adegbile?

As Americans we oppose the unfair criteria developed by the Republican opposition. Attorneys are not responsible for the crimes of their clients, they are just fulfilling the time honored constitutional right of defendants to legal representation.  On the other hand, we need the best people in the top jobs of government, such as the Justice department and Mr.  Debo Agdebile appears to be eminently qualified for the job.  He should be confirmed.