Hobby Lobby Decision a Victory for Women, Supporters Say
“It’s an insult to women that we would in any way value abortion-inducing drugs and so-called free birth control over freedom, over religious liberty and over conscience,” Allison Howard, communications director for Concerned Women for America told CNSNews.com following the 5-4 decision in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case on Monday.
“As a woman, wife, mother and business owner, I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions about birth control without having an employer buy it for me or being forced to provide it against my will to my employees,” Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, told CNSNews.com. “I control my life, not bossy bureaucrats.
“The Obama administration and political Left must stop treating women as victims of their own fertility and stop promoting the false notion that women are only equal to men if they receive free birth control,” Hawkins said.
Howard called the ruling a “huge victory” and said that women also benefit from the decision, despite the claims by abortion advocates that this is part of a “war on women.”
“The war on women rhetoric is getting kind of old,” said Howard, “and I don’t think you can fool women with the same message over and over again.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties are closely held corporations, because despite their size they are solely owned and operated by one family. Alito said the health care mandate was “unlawful,” as is reflected in his written opinion.
“HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage,” the opinion said.
“The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.
“Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections.
“We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty,” the opinion said. “And under (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.”