The Founding Document of our nation, the U.S. Constitution verbiage on the Separation of Church and State in Article I states in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". Article VI attests "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."Now it is time to forget what's quoted above. Why? Because the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision today, just took any priniciples of Congress making laws on establishing religion and decided by a 5 to 4 decision to take a ultra-conservative activist from the bench role themselves.
The U.S. Supreme Court majority decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Docket 13-354 has establish the religious priniciples of a Corporate Person named Hobby Lobby; effectively ruling in favor for an employer to control a Woman's right for receiving birth control medication with the Affordable Healthcare Act.
The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known by the call letters of (RFRA), declares the government. “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.
Understandable but the government should not transfer the insolvable right of "We The People" into "We The Wills of Corporate Religious based Institutions of Businesses".
Writing the Majority Opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Alito put pen on paper to write following Word Salad:
"As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can "opt-out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incomparable with sincerely held religious beliefs.
Nor do we hold as the dissent implies, that such corporations have a free rein to take steps that impose "disadvantages...on others" or require that the "general public pick up the tab". And we certainty do not hold or suggest that "RFRA demands accommodation of for-profit corporation's religious benefits no matter what the impact that accommodation may have on ....."thousands of women employed at Hobby Lobby".
The effect of the HHS-created accommodation would on the Women employed by Hobby Lobby and other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these Women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing."Justice Alito's opinion is not true in its' entirety or intent.
First, by affirming the will of Hobby Lobby's Corporate Owners or Majority of Executive Board Directors in denying payment for birth control opinions previously mandated by ACA, the Justices voting in favor of support are indeed agreeing corporations do have carte blanche rights to instill their religious benefits on Women working for the company.
Or in other words, effectively demand female employees of Hobby Lobby supply payment for their own birth control methods or force the Federal Government to make up monetary the difference.
Next, the impact of this ruling denies access to F.D.A. approved medication used for preventing unwarranted pregnancies to alleviate female related complications such as regulating monthly cycles, lessing the likelihood of cervical cancer, treating endometriosis or premenstrual syndrome side effects creates a grave disadvantage on Hobby Lobby's child-age barring female workers, simply because they are Women.
What would be interesting to see is if Hobby Lobby pays for Viagra for the companies male employees or offers a discount on this medication though its' employer based ACA mandated health insurance program.
Irregardless, what can be best concluded from a five member panel of conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices in the Hobby Lobby ruling, is the following facts:
1). Corporations, at least in the U.S. Supreme Court mindset, are People and have rights to demand its' religious benefits on a segmented class of People: Women.
2). Corporations, not People are entities the Founding Fathers in a periled, twisted view of five U.S. Supreme Court Justices: intended to protect.
3). The Federal Law of the Affordable Healthcare Act, duly passed and affirmed by five members of this same U.S. Supreme Court in 2012, allows for loopholes at the demand of Corporations seeking to deny reasonable birth control options for the company's female employees based on a S, C, or LLC Corp. implying a "religious principle".
4). We as People of the United States of America need to equally demand term-limits and possible removal of one or more U.S. Supreme Court Justices from the bench for totting the seeds of conservative activism from the bench.