July 15, 2014

Democrats’ Political Stunt to Mislead Voters

In last month’s Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court held that a federal law designed to protect the exercise of religion also protects the rights of Americans organized as “closely held corporations.” In response to the decision, Democrats engaged in rhetoric that was un-tethered to the facts of the case. This week, Senate Democrats will take up legislation intended to undo the safeguards set forth by the court. With little expectation that the bill will become law, it should be recognized for what it is: a political stunt that seeks to mislead American voters.

Hobby Lobby Was Based on a Democrat Test

The law being applied in the Hobby Lobby decision was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRA, originally sponsored by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer, passed the House and Senate with overwhelming support and was signed into law by President Clinton. It created a balancing test to safeguard the religious consciences of Americans from government intrusion. The law forbids the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, unless doing so is the least restrictive way to advance a compelling government interest. Thus, the law balances the religious exercise of Americans with the government’s interest. Under this balancing test, the government must satisfy the high standard before imposing a burdensome law.


“The Founders of our Nation, the American people today know that religious freedom is no luxury, but is a basic right of a free people. The bill will restore the first amendment to its proper place as one of the cornerstones of our democracy.”– Rep. Chuck Schumer, May 11, 1993


What Hobby Lobby Means

The Hobby Lobby decision simply struck down an Obama administration requirement that employers provide certain contraception for employees. The requirement at issue was not written into the Affordable Care Act, but was created through regulation by the Department of Health and Human Services. The court held that the mandate violates RFRA because the contraception mandate at issue imposed substantial burden on the free exercise of religion of businesses organized as “closely held corporations.” The court held that closely held corporations are “persons” under the law and, as such, they can exercise religion, just like non-profit organizations.

The Obama administration asserted that the government had a compelling interest in creating the mandate because such insurance coverage requirements promote public health and gender equality. But the court found that these interests had not been pursued through the least restrictive means. Because the administration had already provided exemptions to this requirement for other insurance plans, and could accommodate religious non-profit corporations that objected to the requirement, it failed the law’s “least restrictive means” test.

What Hobby Lobby Does Not Mean

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, Democrats have mischaracterized the decision in an effort to confuse and score political points. To set the record straight, it is important to remember what the justices did and did not conclude:

  • The majority opinion was careful to note that its decision did not mean that employers can opt out of any law that conflicts with their religious beliefs. The compelling state interest test would still apply, just as was done in this case.
  • The decision does not mean that corporations can impose religious beliefs on employees. What the decision does mean, though, is that the government may not impose burdens on the free exercise of religion by Americans who have legally engaged in business as a closely held corporation. 
  • The court did not interpret RFRA to mean that the government may sanction one religious viewpoint over another.
  • Heads of corporations cannot come between “people and their right to health care,” as some have claimed. The right to obtain contraceptives under Griswold v. Connecticut remains the law of the land. 

Democrats’ Legislative “Fix”

Senate Democrats are advancing legislation that purports to correct the Hobby Lobby decision.  It requires all employers to provide any health care items or services that are provided for under any provision of federal law or regulation. The bill asserts that such requirements are consistent with the intent behind RFRA, but RFRA is specifically overridden by the operative provisions of the legislation. Thus, although Hobby Lobby dealt solely with closely held corporations and a limited range of contraception options, the Democrats’ bill covers all employers without limitation and without respecting existing conscience protection provisions of federal law.

The Hobby Lobby decision dealt with a narrow question of how far the government could intrude into the religious liberties of Americans. Rather than undo the protections of RFRA, the Senate should reaffirm the religious liberty safeguards provided by it.

Issue Tag: Judiciary