To answer, I'll assume something like the current law.1 I'll also note that I don't think the outcome of this case really matters much in itself. If Hobby Lobby loses, I won't lose any sleep over it.
1As a general matter of policy, I think a) Hobby Lobby should have the legal right not to offer insurance at all, and b) the insurance model makes sense for rare and expensive events, and shouldn't encompass prepayment for standard, relatively low costs incurred by a large fraction of the affected population for decades. So hospitalization or chemotherapy, but not contraception or dental cleanings, for the same reason that oil changes and routine maintenance aren't covered by car insurance.
But sure, I don't think people should be required to offer services they have strong moral objections to, and I think that the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability") requires that religious objections in particular get a wide berth. ("Strict scrutiny", as the standard goes.)
(It's not the only principle in the world, and it can be overcome if it conflicts with others of equal or greater importance. But the difference between covering and not covering contraception isn't the difference between, say, covering and not covering cancer surgery.)
So: I don't know of any particularly antivax religions, though betting the odds there are some. (I know Christian Science tends to be negative on materia medica generally, which might mean entirely exempting them from the requirement to provide insurance.)
But (rightly or wrongly) we're willing to allow individuals to choose not to be vaccinated or to vaccinate their children. So we've already admitted the possibility that personal objections to vaccinations overcome the public interest. If it's okay (or at least permitted) not to do it, then it seems as if it should be permissible not to pay for it.
(Though given the public health implications of vaccines, there's a decently strong argument that vaccines should in any case be directly publicly subsidized, rather than requiring individuals or their employers to pay for them.)
Whether it's possible to have a sincere religious objection to antibiotics that doesn't cover other medical treatment is something I'd be inclined to leave up to the courts to decide. (The law isn't required to recognize the Church of I Don't Feel Like Complying With This Statute. On the other hand, how do Jains or other practitioners of ahimsa feel about antibiotics?) Certainly, at some point the policy becomes hollowed out enough with exceptions as to not constitute health insurance.
When that point is reached, they either need to be granted a full exemption or not. That would be based on a balancing test between the two laws, one of which requires providing health insurance, the other of which requires respecting people's religious convictions, and the relative burdens on the parties imposed by each.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2014-04-30 08:40 pm (UTC)1As a general matter of policy, I think a) Hobby Lobby should have the legal right not to offer insurance at all, and b) the insurance model makes sense for rare and expensive events, and shouldn't encompass prepayment for standard, relatively low costs incurred by a large fraction of the affected population for decades. So hospitalization or chemotherapy, but not contraception or dental cleanings, for the same reason that oil changes and routine maintenance aren't covered by car insurance.
But sure, I don't think people should be required to offer services they have strong moral objections to, and I think that the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability") requires that religious objections in particular get a wide berth. ("Strict scrutiny", as the standard goes.)
(It's not the only principle in the world, and it can be overcome if it conflicts with others of equal or greater importance. But the difference between covering and not covering contraception isn't the difference between, say, covering and not covering cancer surgery.)
So: I don't know of any particularly antivax religions, though betting the odds there are some. (I know Christian Science tends to be negative on materia medica generally, which might mean entirely exempting them from the requirement to provide insurance.)
But (rightly or wrongly) we're willing to allow individuals to choose not to be vaccinated or to vaccinate their children. So we've already admitted the possibility that personal objections to vaccinations overcome the public interest. If it's okay (or at least permitted) not to do it, then it seems as if it should be permissible not to pay for it.
(Though given the public health implications of vaccines, there's a decently strong argument that vaccines should in any case be directly publicly subsidized, rather than requiring individuals or their employers to pay for them.)
Whether it's possible to have a sincere religious objection to antibiotics that doesn't cover other medical treatment is something I'd be inclined to leave up to the courts to decide. (The law isn't required to recognize the Church of I Don't Feel Like Complying With This Statute. On the other hand, how do Jains or other practitioners of ahimsa feel about antibiotics?) Certainly, at some point the policy becomes hollowed out enough with exceptions as to not constitute health insurance.
When that point is reached, they either need to be granted a full exemption or not. That would be based on a balancing test between the two laws, one of which requires providing health insurance, the other of which requires respecting people's religious convictions, and the relative burdens on the parties imposed by each.