A number of for-profit corporations are suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), claiming that the government's mandate that employees' medical insurance cover conception violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The article quotes the law: "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability..."
The argument goes like this: The government has no right to mandate that a corporation provide contraception when the owners of the corporation have a religious objection to the practice. The question, then, becomes, is a corporation a person? Mitt Romney thinks so. And the Citizens United decision gives credence to the personhood of corporations.
This brings the conversation into some very murky places. For example, let's say a for-profit corporation is owned by Catholics who adhere to their church's proscription against contraception. Under RFRA, they would not be required to provide contraception in their employees' health insurance. But it could go beyond that. By the same logic, a for-profit corporation owned by a member of Jehovah's Witnesses could refuse insurance for blood transfusions. And a Christian Scientist could refuse to provide any health insurance and promise to pray for ill employees and then give them something to read.
And I wonder about the health care employees in Utica, NY where all three hospitals in the city are Catholic-run. The hospitals are not-for-profit, and, therefore, exempt form the HHS mandate. Will there be no contraception for these workers? I emailed that question to one of the hospitals--St. Luke's-Faxton--but they never answered me.
The complications keep coming. Corporations are set up to put a barrier between the owner's assets and any possible liability. But if the owners link themselves too closely to the corporation by their religious observance, then they might lose that protection from liability.
I don't have an answer. The federal court rulings have been contradictory, and eventually, the Nine Wise Ones will have to rule. But it shows that, in the mind of employers, the needs of employees are secondary to the rules of religion, especially when it will allow them to save money by eliminating contraception coverage from health insurance.
