Iowa reaction to the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling (updated)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today in favor of Hobby Lobby’s right not to provide contraception coverage in its health insurance package for employees. The Obama administration had already exempted some religious organizations and non-profits from the contraception mandate in the 2010 health care reform law. Today’s ruling allows a closely-held (that is, not publicly traded) for-profit corporation to claim religious rights that override the rights of their employees, not to mention the need to comply with federal law.

You can read the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision and dissents here (pdf). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the “opinion of the court,” joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy. Strangely, Kennedy wrote a separate concurring opinion “in an attempt to show how narrow the Court’s decision was.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer dissented. The majority ruling appears to apply only to contraception health care services, as opposed to other medical procedures to which some groups have religious objections (such as vaccinations or blood transfusions). Still, Ginsburg seems on track when she warns that the court “has ventured into a minefield” by “approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation.” Analyzing today’s decision, Lyle Denniston predicted more litigation will be needed to clarify the limits of the new religious exemption for closely-held companies.

For background on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case (formerly Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius) and the implications of the ruling, check the Alliance for Justice and SCOTUSblog websites.

After the jump I’ve posted comments from various Iowa elected officials and candidates. So far Iowa Democrats have been quicker to respond to the Hobby Lobby ruling than Republicans. I will update this post as needed.

Statement from U.S. Senator Tom Harkin:

Harkin: Supreme Court Decision Will Limit Access to Critical Preventive Care for Everyday Working Americans

Monday, June 30, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C.-Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, released the following statement today following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

“Providing consumers with access to preventive care services with no cost-sharing was a top priority for me in crafting the Affordable Care Act.  This coverage empowers Americans to make the health care decisions that are best for them and their families. For men and women alike, decisions about medical care and personal health, including birth control, should be made in consultation with their doctor, not their employer.

“Contraception is essential health care. Ninety-nine percent of women- our sisters, daughters, friends, colleagues, and neighbors-will use some form of birth control in their lifetime, and strong majorities of Americans support the notion that women should be able to make their reproductive care decisions without interference from their employer.

“I disagree strongly with today’s Supreme Court’s decision, which will limit access to critical preventive care for everyday working people in Iowa and around the country. I am heartened, however, that the Court’s narrow decision would not extend to other guaranteed health benefits from the Affordable Care Act such as blood transfusions and vaccinations.

“While the Supreme Court has ruled, this fight is far from over. Along with my colleagues in Congress, I am deeply committed to ensuring that all Americans-men and women alike-can get the health coverage they need, and we will be exploring legislative remedies to ensure that affordable contraceptive coverage remains available and accessible.”

Senator Chuck Grassley released this statement:

“The Supreme Court made a decision on the side of religious freedom.  The Obamacare mandate that forced closely held, family companies to pay for abortion-related contraceptive coverage contrary to their religious views was a striking overreach into the personal freedoms and liberties protected by the Constitution.  While the individual consciences of people who run these family businesses will be protected, the court also said that the government could end up providing these services, just as it did for employees of religious non-profits.”

Representative Bruce Braley, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, shared a graphic on Facebook stating,

#NotMyBossBusiness

SHARE THIS IF YOU AGREE WITH BRUCE:

EMPLOYERS SHOULDN’T BE MAKING HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES

BruceBraley.com

Statement from Staci Appel, Democratic nominee in Iowa’s third Congressional district:

           “Every Iowan deserves access to high quality health care coverage, regardless of where they work and women’s health care decisions should be made between her and her doctor, not her employer. Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is a blow to Iowa’s working women and I respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision.”

Pat Murphy, Democratic nominee in Iowa’s first Congressional district, tweeted, “The #HobbyLobby decision put corporations over people. Health care decisions should be made by women, not their employer.”

Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) celebrated by tweeting, “#HobbyLobby prevails in SCOTUS! The Constitution means what it says. The President can’t punish any entity for their religious convictions.”

King’s office released a longer statement on July 1:

July 1, 2014                                                                                                                    Office: 202.225.4426

King: Hobby Lobby Landmark Religious Liberty Case

Washington, DC – Congressman Steve King released the following statement after the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case:

“The Supreme Court came in with a resounding landmark decision in favor of Hobby Lobby,” said King. “Hobby Lobby argued their religious convictions would not allow them to provide, to their employees under ObamaCare: sterilizations, abortion causing drugs, or certain contraceptives.

Hobby Lobby asserted the federal government has no right to tell those who own a business that they must violate their most deeply held convictions or face a fine from the IRS that would eventually bankrupt the company.

In the 5-4 decision, the majority opinion written by Justice Alito, concluded the Constitution means what it says and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 also means what it says. This landmark Hobby Lobby case blows a big hole in ObamaCare and there’s more to come.

I have long said that ObamaCare is unconstitutional for a number of reasons. I know of no legal scholar who predicted the rationale of Chief Justice Roberts in the first big legal challenge of ObamaCare. We should expect at least two more big cases to be decided by the high court. The most potentially devastating case to the Obama Agenda will likely be decided when the court rules on the origination clause in the Hotze v. Sibelius case. All revenue generating bills must start in the House. The Senate violated that principle by tearing a bill number off an unrelated, non revenue generating bill from the House and pasting the bill number onto a 2000 page ObamaCare bill.

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against the Obama Administration in 12 recent cases. This 5-4 Hobby Lobby decision is a strong indication the court will do more of its part to deconstruct ObamaCare. We cannot rest, however. No matter how much encouragement we feel as the courts begin to take ObamaCare apart, it is the job of Congress to listen to the people and pull ObamaCare out by its roots.

I congratulate Hobby Lobby for standing on both their religious convictions and on Constitutional principles. All Americans benefit when principled people take a stand.”

I have not seen any official statement from Republican U.S. Senate nominee Joni Ernst. The Iowa Democratic Party’s comment on the Supreme Court ruling attempted to tie her to extreme anti-contraception viewpoints.

IDP Statement on Hobby Lobby Case

Des Moines – As the Supreme Court rules today on the Hobby Lobby case, Iowa Democratic Party spokeswoman Christina Freundlich released the following statement:

“No woman should have her access to affordable birth control cut off because of her boss’ opinion.  Yet that’s what state Sen. Joni Ernst supports, along with a constitutional “Personhood” amendment that would ban some common forms of birth control entirely and outlaw a woman’s right to choose even in the event of rape, incest, or to save the life of a mother.  This includes keeping a woman with a life-threatening pregnancy from getting the care she needs and criminalizing common forms of birth control that help them stay healthy and plan for their families – it even blocks preventative care that reduces the risk of cancer and osteoporosis.

“Time and again, state Sen. Joni Ernst wants to put her extreme ideology before the rights of Iowa women to make their own medical decisions with their doctor. That’s not fair and not what Iowa women deserve.”

BACKGROUND:

Ernst Supports Exceptions To ACA’s Birth Control Mandate

Ernst Cosponsored Legislation Providing Religious Conscience Protections For Employers Against The Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Mandate. In February 2014, Ernst cosponsored a bill for an act establishing religious conscience protections for employers regarding the provision of health insurance or benefit coverages that include abortion and certain contraceptive services. [Senate File 2153, 2/11/14]

Personhood Amendment Supported By Ernst Prohibits Certain Forms Of Contraception

Ernst Supported Fetal “Personhood” Amendment Which Could Prohibit In-Vitro Fertilization And Some Methods Of Contraception.  In April 2013, The Des Moines Register wrote “Twenty-one members of the Iowa Senate filed a resolution Thursday proposing a fetal ‘personhood’ amendment to the Iowa Constitution which would give human embryos a right to life beginning at conception.” The Register continued, “A similar amendment failed in Mississippi in 2011 and in Colorado in 2008 and 2010. Opponents of the North Dakota amendment have called it an intrusion on women’s private medical decisions, adding it could prohibit in-vitro fertilization and some methods of contraception. [Des Moines Register, 4/15/13]

High Costs Are One Of The “Primary Barriers” To Contraceptives

CAP: “High Costs Are One Of The Primary Barriers To Contraceptive Access.” In February 2012, The Center For American Progress wrote: “Many people seem to think birth control is affordable, but high costs are one of the primary barriers to contraceptive access … Although three-quarters of American women of childbearing age have private insurance, they still have had to pay a significant portion of contraceptive costs on their own.

– A recent study shows that women with private insurance paid about 50 percent of the total costs for oral contraceptives, even though the typical out-of-pocket cost of non-contraceptive drugs is only 33 percent.

– In some cases oral contraceptives approach 29 percent of out-of-pocket spending on health care for women with private insurance.

– Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than do men, in part because of contraceptive costs” [Center For American Progress, 2/15/12]

National Institute For Reproductive Health: High Cost Represents A “Substantial Barrier” To Contraception For Many Women. In March 2014, The National Institute For Reproductive Health wrote: “Unfortunately, many women face substantial barriers to accessing contraception. Barriers include lack of insurance, high cost, and pharmacy refusal. Low-income women disproportionately face barriers to accessing contraception and compose the majority of women seeking care at Title X clinics. They are four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and more than four times as likely to have an abortion as their higher-income counterparts.” [National Institute For Reproductive Health, 3/24/14]

Contraceptives Are Used To Reduce The Risk Of Cancer And May Protect Against Osteoporosis. In August 2008, The New York Times reported, “Hormonal contraceptive methods use manufactured estrogen and progestin in different combinations and deliver them in a variety of ways – through pills, shots, skin patches, implants, IUDs and vaginal rings. Studies have shown that all those methods reduce the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. Some may also help protect against osteoporosis.” [New York Times, 8/1/08]

UPDATE: Joni Ernst’s campaign released this statement on June 30:

Des Moines, IA – Upon the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case, Gretchen Hamel, Joni Ernst spokesman, made the following statement:

“Joni applauds the Supreme Court for reigning [sic] in a federal government that continues to overreach and apply a one-size fits all approach on Iowa and the American people.

This case was never about limiting individual healthcare decisions – but about pushing back against the violation of religious freedom by President Obama and Bruce Braley, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

David Young, GOP nominee in IA-03, released this statement: “The Supreme Court recognized the importance of religious liberties, and the ruling is further proof that Obamacare and the employer mandate are inherently flawed.”

Retiring Representative Tom Latham (R, IA-03) released this statement:

Supreme Court: President’s Health Care Law Encroaches On Freedoms Of American People

f t # e

Washington, D.C., Jun 30 | Shayne L. Martin (202-225-5476)

“The highest court in the land confirmed again today that President Obama’s new health care law encroaches on the freedoms of the American people.” share: f t The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it has struck down a mandate created by President Obama’s new health care law ruling that companies cannot be forced to offer insurance coverage that includes types of birth control that would violate the employer’s religious beliefs.

“The highest court in the land confirmed again today that President Obama’s new health care law encroaches on the freedoms of the American people.  This is another set-back in a law that, while it may have been well intentioned, is clearly hurting more people than it is helping.  Americans are concerned that the Administration and Democrats in Congress continue to fully embrace a poorly written law, passed in the dead of night by legislators who had no clue what was in it.  The good news is that Republicans are dedicated to replacing the failed parts of the law with better solutions that deliver better results for patient-centered health care reform for all Americans” said Congressman Latham about the decision.

Congressman Latham has introduced the H.R. 3165 – the Common Sense Health Reform Americans Actually Want Act that repeals and replaces the President’s 2010 health care law. Latham’s legislation provides common sense ways to guarantee coverage of preexisting conditions, cover the uninsured and ensure affordable access for millions of Americans.

As of July 1, I still have not seen any comments on this ruling from Rod Blum, GOP nominee in IA-01, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, GOP nominee in IA-02, Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02), or Jim Mowrer, Democratic nominee in IA-04.

SECOND UPDATE: The social conservative organization FAMiLY Leader released the following statement:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  Monday, June 30, 2014

The FAMiLY LEADER Issues Statements on the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Supreme Court Cases

Urbandale, IOWA. – This morning, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood in their cases regarding religious liberty.

Bob Vander Plaats, President and CEO said, “We celebrate a 5-4 victory, but no matter what the decision would have been, our focus remains constant in the defense of religious liberty.  I hope and pray that this fragile ruling assists in fueling the need for revival in America, and a new sense of urgency for defending our religious freedoms.”

Chuck Hurley, Vice President and Chief Counsel for The FAMiLY LEADER said, “The Supreme Court of the United States today emphatically said that we Americans should be free to live and work according to our faith.  We hope that the Court will continue to affirm, in all future cases, the cornerstone right arising from our first freedom – religious liberty.”

The FAMiLY LEADER was represented by Matt Floyd who was present in the Supreme Court chambers as the decision was being read.  Mr. Floyd said “The most important thing to remember is that this is primarily a religious liberty decision and does not hinder health care.  I saw lots of misreporting that Hobby Lobby was trying to eliminate all birth control, when in fact, they were only concerned about four of the 20 options available – the four which cause abortions.  Their (and our) strongly held religious belief is that life begins at conception.”

Chuck Hurley continued, “This is a big win for religious freedom in the United States.  The Court said that we can live out our most deeply held religious beliefs without fear of the government crushing them through oppressive fines that in these cases literally would have put of thousands of women and men out of work.  Hobby Lobby was threatened by the Obama Administration with fines of $1.3 million PER DAY.  This was a transparent attempt to force Christian believers to fund abortion-causing drugs, or go out of business.  I hope the President’s Administration gets the message, and ceases their effort to crush faith groups like Little Sisters of the Poor.  See http://www.becketfund.org/litt… for one of the most egregious examples of religious oppression in America today.”

Tamara Scott, Family Policy Advocate for The FAMiLY LEADER said, “The scariest part of this decision is that four liberal members of the Court thought such oppression was just fine.”

Mr. Hurley concluded, “This is also good news for the 100 or so other religious liberty cases in court right now.  I would expect motions for summary judgment to be filed this week in many if not all of those cases, citing this ruling.

Contact Dave Barnett for interviews with Bob Vander Plaats, Chuck Hurley or Tamara Scott.

About The FAMiLY LEADER

The FAMiLY LEADER champions the principle that God is the ultimate leader of the family. Our goal at The FAMiLY LEADER is to honor and glorify God – not a political party, not a candidate and not a program. The FAMiLY LEADER is a Christ centered organization that leads with humility and service to strengthen and protect the family. Learn more about the organization at http://www.thefamilyleader.com… .  Follow The FAMiLY LEADER on Twitter @TheFamilyLeader and Facebook www.facebook.com/THEFAMiLYLEADER, or www.TheFamilyLeader.com.

THIRD UPDATE: Forgot to add these comments from Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02):

U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, said the ruling “takes health care decisions away from women and puts it in their boss’s hands,” adding that the ruling is a “step backwards.”

Loebsack is also concerned about the broader implications of the case, and he called for Congress to act so the nation “can once again be for the people, by the people and not bought and paid for by large corporations.”

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

Comments