So Many Rivers To Cross: the Supreme Court Favors the Employer.

By now you’ve seen the news: the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has ruled that Hobby Lobby has the right to refuse to supply contraceptive insurance to its female employees (on the basis of its objections to certain contraceptives that they claim induce abortions) for “religious reasons.”  The Supreme Court says that “closely held” corporations (those with five or fewer shareholders having over 50% of the stock) have this religious right.  This ruling, despite its claim to narrowness, applies to 90% of American corporations (all those who are closely held.)

This ruling is stunning for being totally disingenuous.  The Court ignores the fact that, as it admits, the federal government has a compelling interest in requiring this form of insurance.  It claims that the mechanism the government uses is not the “least intrusive.”  This is not true because, if Hobby Lobby were to provide “free” contraception, its total insurance costs would actually be lower (because there would be fewer pregnancies and deliveries, which are expensive) according to research studies.  In addition, Hobby Lobby could simply opt out of providing insurance at all and instead pay a tax, which is cheaper.  The Court claims that a less intrusive method would be to allow Hobby Lobby the same exemption given to explicitly religious organizations, namely to transfer the responsibility to the insurance company.  The insurance company doesn’t mind, since it is cheaper anyway.

The suit brought by Hobby Lobby, and the Supreme Court decision, seem to be designed rather to make a point about religion, that is, that powerful business figures can impose their idea of religious righteousness on their employees.  This is sympathetic with the Court’s decisions about unions, which have taken severe hits over the last fifty years, and further the right wing line that unions are an impermissible intrusion on the employer’s right to control his employees.

If you extend this reasoning, you end up with single-payer health insurance, which would be the ideal result in any case.  However, the insurance companies don’t like this idea, so don’t expect to see it in the US anytime soon.

What you have, with this limited ruling, is a further fractured health care system with insurance still depending on one’s employer.  The insurance companies don’t mind, and the employers see their rights to control their employees further aggrandized.

This ruling, and others of its type, show how distorted the Supreme Court’s judgment has become.  The Court favors the powerful, the employers, over the weak, the employees, and enables the powerful to control the weak more effectively.  This is not a good thing for the USA.  How can we be free if we are constantly under the control of our employers?