Women's rights at stake in Hobby Lobby case

Corporations do not pray, worship, participate in sacramental rituals or engage in other religiously-motivated programs or actions. Yet, this week three corporations, including the crafts store Hobby Lobby, were before the Supreme Court arguing that large, for-profit businesses should not be required to pay for contraceptive devices that would violate their religious beliefs.

The companies seek, on grounds of religious liberty, an exemption from compliance with a section of the Affordable Health Care Act that directs employers to provide coverage for contraception in their health care plans. Hobby Lobby believes, contrary to medical and scientific evidence, that some forms of contraception listed in the federal mandate are tantamount to abortion, which offends their religious convictions.

Hobby Lobby seeks protection for its religious liberties under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which protects "persons" from governmental regulations that impose a "substantial burden" on their religious beliefs. Under RFRA, the imposition of a "substantial burden" is permissible only if it furthers a "compelling government interest" and is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the end.

The Hobby Lobby case pits claims of religious liberty against the rights and health interests of women, who use contraceptives for a variety of important health care reasons, quite apart from the goal of avoiding pregnancy. The case is reminiscent of the question raised in Citizens United, the 2010 ruling that generated waves of controversy across the nation: Do business corporations enjoy the same rights as citizens?

Hobby Lobby asks the High Court, for the first time in American history, to attribute religious freedom to business corporations. Are corporations "people" with the same rights as citizens? The easy answer should be "no." Business corporations are legal entities distinct from the people who create them. The religious beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby are not implicated by the federal mandate. It's the corporation that is required to obey the law. By virtue of its legal personhood, Hobby Lobby should enjoy only those rights that are essential to its existence and its operations. Religious liberty is not among them.

Religious freedom is essential to churches, other houses of worship and non-profits with a religious mission. But those entities that are chartered and organized to earn profits, those incorporated as "for-profit" businesses should not be entitled to exemptions from otherwise neutral, generally applicable laws for reasons of religious beliefs.

If the court grants Hobby Lobby's wish, there is no telling where this line of reasoning stops. At oral argument, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor asked Hobby Lobby if blood transfusions and vaccines for employees might be denied on religious grounds.

Depending on the outcome of the court's ruling, millions of women could be denied coverage of any or all forms of birth control through their company-sponsored health insurance plans. The financial costs could be staggering. Intrauterine devices, for example, could exhaust a full month's income of a minimum wage- earner. The financial implications of the failure to provide contraceptives do not begin to tell the complete story of the psychological and emotional toll of an unwanted pregnancy. Victory for Hobby Lobby would deny to its 13,000 employees the moral agency to decide whether they want to use contraceptives. This is a case that is preeminently about women's rights, not the religious liberties of the owners of Hobby Lobby.

A ruling against Hobby Lobby is not a defeat for religious liberty, but a denial of the claim that soulless business corporations have religious rights. In Citizens United, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the scope of a corporation's rights should be revisited. That opportunity is at hand in Hobby Lobby.

David Adler is the director of the Andrus Center for Public Policy at Boise State University, where he holds appointment as the Cecil D. Andrus Professor of Public Affairs.