Corporate Religion

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A few cases involving the mandates on employers have come down in the last week, which raise some interesting issues:

* In Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, the Washington, DC district court granted an injunction on penalties stemming from the publishing house's refusal to offer contraceptive coverage, citing religious freedom. Of the key findings from the ruling, it was held that even the indirect burden is enough to cause a religious liberty issue, and that the government lacked a compelling interest in handing down the mandate.

* In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, an Oklahoma district court ruled in favor of the federal government in part because the ruling differentiated between for-profit and religious corporations, making a distinction between organizations involved in worship and organizations that, at least according to this judge, are for-profit or simply religiously-associated.

We now have 4 lower court rulings in play right now regarding the contraception mandate. All four involved for-profit institutions, only Hobby Lobby ruling in favor of the government on the issue, and none of this has anything to do with the Liberty University case that just made it back to the 4th Circuit.

Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights? Especially in the case of places like Hobby Lobby, who outright state that '[T]he foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." Given the first amendment, hasn't the government clearly overstepped their bounds?

Comments

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

This study does not mean what you think it does. This study is testing whether or not an increase in more expensive forms of birth control would reduce unintended pregnancies. It is saying that methods that don't require, say a daily pill, are more effective than other methods that are less cost prohibitive. These conclusions are consistent with what I said.

I think it would be a likely result, particularly if more expensive forms were free.

However, comparing these results to the national average is erroneous, as the study does not account for woman not taking birth control forms at all. Particular, with young woman, who's hurdles to getting birth control include seeing a doctor, worrying about parents finding out, etc. A study would have to look at how many unintended pregnancies are a result of not using any contraceptives at all. This study did not do this. I also have a few problems with this papers methods. Foremost, they standardized their CHOICE group to the rest of the population, as their demographics were of higher risk as their demographics where 50% black women and median age of 25 (a group at much higher risk). I believe this to be erroneous. These groups are at higher risk because they have less access to birth control for various reasons, a factor that they are 100% eliminating by doing the study, and not simply because of economics reasons. In other words, heavy bias unaccounted for, and even exacerbated.

And yes, I did see this study before I posted the comment you responded to.