U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S SIGNATURE HEALTH CARE LAW -- THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT -- AIMS
TO OFFER HEALTH INSURANCE TO ALL AMERICANS -- REGARDLESS OF AGE OR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.
AND ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY RULED THAT MANDATING HEALTH INSURANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL,
THE LAW IS FACING THE JUSTICES ONCE AGAIN.
IT IS AND THE CASE CENTERS ON THE NEW REQUIREMENT THAT HEALTH PLANS COVER CONTRACEPTIVES.
VOA RELIGION REPORTER JEROME SOCOLOVSKY HAS BEEN TRACKING THE CASE AND EXPLAINS IT TO
OUR REBECCA WARD.
AS PART OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS OBAMACARE, PART OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HEALTH
CARE REFORM, EMPLOYERS ARE STILL PROVIDING HEALTHCARE AS THEY DID BEFORE.
BUT PART OF THAT REFORM INCLUDES NOW CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE.
AND THE REASON THAT HOBBY LOBBY, IS ONE OF THE COMPANIES, HOBBY LOBBY AND CONESTOGA HAVE
TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THIS IS AN AFFRONT THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES?
RIGHT.
HOBBY LOBBY IS A CHAIN OF ARTS AND CRAFTS STORES THAT'S OWNED BY AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN
FAMILY.
IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPANIES IN THE COUNTRY.
"THIS IS AN ISSUE OF LIFE, THAT WE CANNOT BE A PART OF TAKING LIFE.
AND SO TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE OUR GOVERNMENT IS TELLING US WE HAVE TO BE, IS INCREDIBLE."
THE SUPREME COURT WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER TWO TRICKY LEGAL QUESTIONS.
ONE IS WHETHER FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS HAVE A RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
AND THE OTHER IS WHETHER BUSINESS OWNERS' RIGHTS COME BEFORE THOSE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES.
CONESTOGA WOOD SPECIALTIES IS A SMALLER COMPANY IN PENNSYLVANIA.
THEY MAKE, IT'S A WOODWORKING COMPANY - THEY MAKE CABINETS AND FURNITURE.
THEY ARE OWNED BY A MENNONITE FAMILY, WHICH IS A TRADITIONAL PROTESTANT GROUPING, AND
THEY ARE ALSO OBJECTING ON THE SAME GROUNDS THAT IT WOULD MAKE THEM COMPLICIT IN AN ABORTION.
AND I GUESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS WHETHER OR NOT A CORPORATION HAS THE SAME RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM THAT IS GUARANTEED IN OUR CONSTITUTION AS A PERSON WOULD?
RIGHT.
SO THERE WAS A CONTROVERSIAL SUPREME COURT RULING A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO CALLED CITIZENS
UNITED WHICH FOUND THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE THE SAME FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS THAT PEOPLE
HAVE, AND THEREFORE CORPORATIONS COULD GIVE UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO ELECTORAL CAMPAIGNS.
SO SOME PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT PERHAPS THE SAME THING COMING OUT OF THIS RULING -- A
RULING THAT SAYS CORPORATIONS HAVE THE SAME FREEDOM OF RELIGION RIGHTS THAT PEOPLE DO.
IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO GO THAT FAR BECAUSE THAT COULD REALLY OPEN
UP A CAN OF WORMS.
BUT THE SUPREME COURT IS ALSO BEING ASKED TO RULE ON WHETHER THE BURDEN OF RELIGIOUS
EXERCISE, THE BURDEN ON THESE COMPANIES OF HAVING THEIR HEALTH PLANS COVER THESE CONTRACEPTIVES,
WOULD BE MORE THAN THAT OF THE BURDEN ON THE EMPLOYEES.
IS THERE A SIMILAR FREEDOM OF RELIGION CASE IN THE PAST THAT CAME BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT?
WELL THERE HAVE BEEN FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS, RELIGION CASES ALL THROUGHOUT AMERICAN HISTORY.
AND CERTAINLY RECENTLY THERE WAS A CASE IN THE 1990S ABOUT A NATIVE AMERICAN BEING ABLE
TO SMOKE A DRUG.
PEYOTE, RIGHT?
PEYOTE - THAT'S TECHNICALLY NOT LEGAL.
AND IN THAT CASE, THAT LED TO ACTUALLY WHAT'S CALLED THE RELIGIOUS RESTORATION ACT, WHICH
SAYS THAT IF A PERSON'S RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE LIMITED, IT CAN ONLY BE IF THERE'S
A COMPELLING INTEREST FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
SO THAT CASE IS PROBABLY GOING TO FIGURE IN THIS SUPREME COURT CASE.
AND THERE HAS BEEN A COMPROMISE WITH SOME OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, WITH RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS,
THAT PEOPLE CAN GET THE CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE OUTSIDE OF THE EMPLOYER'S HEALTH CARE.
SO JEROME, I GUESS THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY RULE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?
I MEAN, HOW WILL THAT AFFECT WHAT'S COMMONLY CALLED OBAMACARE NOW?
WELL IT'S INTERESTING THAT BOTH SIDES ARE TALKING ABOUT A KIND OF PANDORA'S BOX OF POSSIBILITIES.
IF THE COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF HOBBY LOBBY, MORE PROGRESSIVE TYPE EXPERTS ARE SAYING THAT
THAT COULD OPEN UP TO DISCRIMINATION LIKE A CONSERVATIVE MUSLIM TAXI DRIVER COULD REFUSE
TO PICK UP WOMEN WHO ARE TRAVELING UNACCOMPANIED BY MEN - BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AGAINST THEIR
FAITH.
WHEREAS I TALKED TO SOMEONE WHO IS ONE OF HOBBY LOBBY'S LAWYERS WHO SAID THAT IF THE
COURT RULES AGAINST HOBBY LOBBY, THAT COULD OPEN UP TO RESTRICTIONS ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND SHE CITED THE BANS ON KOSHER AND HALAL RITUAL SLAUGHTER IN EUROPE THAT WE'VE SEEN
RECENTLY.
THEY ARGUED IT SAYING THAT ANIMALS SHOULD BE STUNNED FIRST BEFORE THEY ARE SLAUGHTERED,
WHICH IS AGAINST BOTH JEWISH AND ISLAMIC PRACTICE.
AND THANKS AGAIN TO VOA RELIGION REPORTER JEROME SOCOLOVSKY FOR THAT REPORT.
THE SUPREME COURT IS EXPECTED TO MAKE A RULING ON THISE CASE LATER THIS YEAR.