Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
Hobby Lobby lawyer encouraged by latest hearing

Hobby Lobby lawyer encouraged by latest hearing

Last updated on: May 24, 2013 at 11:04 pm by CNA Daily News

Hobby Lobby lawyer encouraged by latest hearing 2013-05-24T23:04:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Denver, Colo., May 24, 2013 / 05:04 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The lawyer representing Hobby Lobby and its Christian owners in a lawsuit challenging the federal contraception mandate is heartened following the case's hearing before a federal appeals court.

“We were encouraged by it; we were able to make our points forcefully, and we felt the judges heard what were were saying,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told CNA May 24.

The arts and crafts retailer is one of well over 100 plaintiffs challenging a mandate issued by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring that employers provide insurance coverage for contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilizations.

On May 23, Duncan argued Hobby Lobby's case before the full eight-member panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Such cases are usually heard by only three judges of an appellate court.

“The mere fact we were standing there before the entire 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is encouraging in and of itself… it's a really extraordinary thing,” he explained.

Duncan said it is a “fair inference” to believe the court granted a hearing with the full panel because “they wanted to bring all the resource of the court to bear, to make sure that everyone understood – including the Supreme Court – that they were giving this very careful consideration.”

Hobby Lobby is a for-profit business run by the the Green family, who are Christians and who exercise their faith through their business. They object to providing “earmarked gift certificates” for emergency contraceptives, which can induce abortions within the first week after sexual intercourse.

Both the Greens themselves, and Hobby Lobby, have brought the suit against the HHS secretary, and the oral arguments made May 23 focused on the Greens' 'standing,' or right to bring the suit.

They argue that their first amendment right to free exercise of religion is “substantially burdened” by the contraception mandate, as are their rights under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Nearly 200 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits across the country, challenging the mandate on grounds of religious liberty.

The Greens run their business through a trust, by which they “bound themselves to have religious goals” in the corporation's work.

Much of the arguments focused on the exercise of religion in the public and commercial spheres, and when a judge asked if you can have it “both ways” – having both religious and commercial interests – Duncan replied that “it's not having it 'both ways,' it's 'both/and,'” and that religious goals are not inconsistent with business goals.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires that the government have a “compelling interest” in restricting religious liberty, because it is regarded as so important and fundamental in American law.

Duncan argued that the government does not have a “compelling interest” in forcing Hobby Lobby to give its employees coverage for abortifacient drugs because “it has already granted exemptions from that portion of the mandate to many religious employers.”

“If the government really believed” that every woman must have insurance coverage for contraceptives, Duncan told CNA, then “it would make the mandate across the board – it would apply to everybody.

“And it doesn't apply to everybody. There are tens of millions of people who are exempted from this.”

During the arguments, Duncan explained to the court that Hobby Lobby's coverage of emergency contraceptives is not “indispensable” precisely because the HHS department has already exempted the employers of 87 million people from providing that very coverage.

The federal government has exempted churches from being subject to the mandate, as well as providing an “accommodation” to certain non-profit religious employers.

The federal government's lawyer, Alisa Klein, responded in the oral arguments that religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should be applied to “churches and spiritual leaders, as a paradigm” and that only “some types of entities” have free exercise of religion.

Extending such rights to for-profit businesses and their owners would “go towards” establishing a national church and would allow churches to “extend their influence” and “branch into for-profit entities,” according to Klein.

She characterized the Greens' claims as pitting their rights against the rights of their employees, saying that employees would be harmed if their employer did not pay for their emergency contraception.

Duncan told CNA that “the idea that Hobby Lobby is oppressing its employees or denying them a significant amount of benefits really doesn't measure up to the facts. Let's remember, Hobby Lobby provides generous wages well above the minimum wage, and generous benefits to its employees.”

“Hobby Lobby isn't violating the rights of its employees. Its employees are perfectly free to buy and use these drugs, even to use the generous wages Hobby Lobby gave them, to buy the drugs, so we think the government has the rights question really quite backwards,” he said.

He noted that the coverage the Greens refuse to pay for is “a very very small number of drugs,” within its “otherwise extraordinarily generous comprehensive health benefits.”

One of the judges made a similar point during the oral arguments, emphasizing the importance of religious liberty.

When Klein had acknowledged that the corporation provides wide-ranging insurance benefits to its employees, the judged asked her rhetorically, “So if you add an objectionable mandate to a lot (of mandates) that are okay, it's not a burden?”

Duncan noted that among the judges, there were some both friendly and hostile to both sides, but that “it's not easy” and can even be “dangerous” to “try and predict the outcome of oral arguments.”

While speaking to reporters outside the court room following the arguments, he said the court's decision will likely be handed down sometime in July.

“We'll just have to wait and see,” he reflected.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 24, 2013

Papal encyclicals expected on faith and poverty, bishop reveals

Next Post

May 25, 2013 Ariz. abortion law hoped to win Supreme Court support

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the only disciple who was not martyred?

Select your answer to see how you score.

John James Thomas Peter