Supreme Court should hear Hobby Lobby case

The Obama administration has refused to allow corporations to not provide the morning after pill to their employees based on religious beliefs Photo: HHS mandate protest

WASHINGTON, November 17, 2013  The Supreme Court just heard arguments for Greece v. Galloway, a case about legislative prayer and religious freedom. But the debate shouldn’t stop there. The Court should also agree to hear Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, a high-profile case that carries widespread implications for religious business owners across the country.

Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius is the case in which Hobby Lobby is suing the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the Obamacare contraception mandate. Contrary to the popular rhetoric, the issue is not even about birth control - Hobby Lobby still offers 16 other types of birth control in its health insurance plan.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, a corporation, simply believe that providing the “morning-after” pill (“emergency contraception”) as part of the company’s health insurance plan contradicts their religious beliefs. The Obama administration has refused to allow them, or the 200 other plaintiffs in related cases, an exemption from this requirement.

Many are quick to claim that Hobby Lobby is imposing its religious beliefs on its employees. They don’t believe the owners of the company should have the right to structure the insurance plan based on their convictions.

But why not? Since when are business owners not allowed to make the decisions for their company?

Employees of Hobby Lobby cannot claim religious beliefs are forced upon them. They are not required to go to church, pray at work, or read the Bible on breaks. Employees are already protected against religious discrimination in hiring and firing by United States law.

In fact, a job at Hobby Lobby is quite appealing. Full-time hourly workers start at 80 percent above the minimum wage, and the store is always closed on Sundays. If employees would rather work for another company that does not offer those benefits but does provide the morning-after pill, that is completely their choice. No one is forcing them to work for Hobby Lobby.

Employees are rational actors too, and they are able to assess the costs and benefits of their choices without the government managing the company’s health plan.

The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Yet President Obama has limited the interpretation of this clause, defining it in a January 2013 speech as the “freedom to worship as we choose.” Note the difference between the two interpretations.

Freedom to worship is important, but it does not capture the whole picture. Religion is not simply a service in church once a week, it is a living set of beliefs and actions that defines our daily lives. Unilaterally restricting the scope of the First Amendment to omit protection for places like Hobby Lobby is dangerous and unconstitutional.

Os Guinness, a renowned expert on religious freedom, puts it this way in his book The Global Public Square: “Free exercise goes beyond mere freedom of worship to include… the right to profess, practice, and propagate faith too.”

The Supreme Court should take up the Hobby Lobby case and allow the company the religious freedom rights guaranteed to it by the Constitution, regardless of the Obama administration’s attempts to curtail that freedom.

Danny Huizinga
Syndicated Political Columnist,
Communities at
@HuizingaDanny (Twitter)


SEE RELATED: Chick-fil-A and the silent voting majority

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Consider Again
blog comments powered by Disqus
Danny Huizinga

Danny Huizinga is currently studying at Baylor University, pursuing three business majors in Economics, Finance, and Business Fellows with minors in mathematics and political science. Although originally from the Chicago area, he is a Texas resident. Danny writes a political blog called Consider Again located at and is also syndicated at The College Conservative, RedState, PolicyMic, and the Baylor Lariat.

Follow him on Twitter or Google+

Contact Danny Huizinga


Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus