Today's E-Edition | Home | Contact Us | Subscribe
Athol Daily News | Athol, MA
Click for Athol, Massachusetts Forecast
VOL: CCCXXX No. 44 Serving the North Quabbin Region Since 1934
Athol - Orange - Royalston - Phillipston - Petersham - New Salem - Erving - Wendell - Warwick
Friday, May 22, 2015

home : opinion : editorial May 22, 2015

7/2/2014 11:18:00 AM
Women's rights get short shrift in Hobby Lobby case

Never mind the adage about fools rushing in where angels fear to tread. The U.S. Supreme Court defers to those who invoke religious belief, even if their personhood resides in a for-profit corporation. In another 5-4 decision dividing the court's conservatives and liberals, the justices Monday took a radical step that disturbs the fine balance between an individual's right to the free exercise of religion and the rights of other Americans.

Yet in his majority opinion, Associate Justice Samuel Alito downplayed the significance of what the court was recklessly doing. He wrote " ... 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 incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.'"

Americans should hope this is true but there is reason for skepticism. At every turn, Justice Alito and his confederates gave the benefit of a doubt to those who challenged requirements of the Affordable Care Act for some types of contraception coverage.

If this is an indication of the future, the case of Sylvia Burwell, secretary of Health and Human Services, v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp., could loom as large as the notorious Citizens United case in its capacity for mischief. Just as in Citizens United, the question of whether a corporation can be considered a person loomed large.

The closely held corporations successfully argued that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gave them a pass on providing contraception as part of their employees' health insurance plans. It didn't matter they were set up as for-profit corporations. They were a person under the act and capable of the free exercise of religion, Justice Alito said.

Not so, said Associate Justice Ginsburg, the author of the principal dissent, rebutting the court's decision as one of "startling breadth." Putting her finger on the collateral damage, she decried the impact on "in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga ..." And that may be just for starters.

This is a troubling decision. It is as if the Supreme Court were hell-bent on defending religion and never mind the cost to those who don't share the boss's beliefs.

(c)2014 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 

Article Comment Submission Form
Please feel free to submit your comments.

Article comments are not posted immediately to the Web site. Each submission must be approved by the Web site editor, who may edit content for appropriateness. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while the web site editor reviews and approves it.

Note: All information on this form is required. Your telephone number is for our use only, and will not be attached to your comment.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Last Name:
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.

weather sponsored by

Advanced Search


Rate Card

Wiyaka Stories

WiyakaNorth Quabbin ChamberAthol Historical SocietyNorth Quabbin WoodsLife
Home | Subscribe
Athol Daily News, PO BOX 1000, 225 Exchange Street Athol, MA 01331
Contact Us (978) 249-3535

Software © 1998-2015 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved