Support the Café

Search our Site

Further Hobby Lobby reaction, analysis

Further Hobby Lobby reaction, analysis

The internet continues to react to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Hobby Lobby case, in which they determined that closely-held corporations can claim religious exemptions to providing contraception to their employees.

Here’s some early reaction.

Mother Jones gives you the 8 best lines in Justice Ginsberg’s dissent here. if you need it in soundbites.

Yahoo News gives you a longer analysis of her dissent here. Notably, she points out that this decision will open the door to all manner of problems in employer-provided health care. What happens when employers object to providing coverage for narcotic pain medication? Or organ transplants? Or hospice care? What, specifically, makes contraception coverage different?

The White House chimed in, with the President issuing a statement, saying that the decision today put the health of women employees at risk across the country.

Tobin Grant, a blogger for the Religious News Service, describes this as a win for religious liberty, but a blow for women’s health, though narrow in both directions.

He explained:

And the Court went out of its way to stress the relative narrowness of its decision today. During oral arguments in March, Justice Kagan wondered whether, should the Greens prevail, future employers may deny covering blood transfusions or vaccinations in insurance coverage on religious grounds. Others worried that employers may use this decision to justify discrimination in hiring on religious grounds.

Today’s majority opinion quickly and explicitly dispatched most of these concerns. But the Court did not address whether religious employers denying homosexuals employment would fall under RFRA protection – that is apparently a question for another day.

Read the piece here.

Religious News Service did get a full reaction round up, available here.

For more analysis, head to Think Progress weighs in with why this decision is a problem for religion, saying, in part:

These voices represent the majority of religious Americans who insist that today’s pro-Hobby Lobby decision isn’t about protecting “religious liberty.” Instead, it’s just a victory for one kind of religion, specifically the (usually conservative) faith of those privileged enough to own and operate massive corporations. That might be good news for the wealthy private business owners like the heads of Hobby Lobby, but for millions of religious Americans sitting in the pews — not to mention thousands working in Hobby Lobby stores — their sacred and constitutional right to religious freedom just became compromised.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Woodrum

If I remember correctly, all five of the justices are Roman Catholics to whom any form of birth control is murder. Just sayin’.

John D

Sorry, Tobin Grant, this decision is a disaster. Mr. Alito specifically limited his decision to contraception coverage, allowing the rest of us to assume that SCOTUS would surely not allow a corporate boss(of a “closely-held firm”) who happened to be a Jehovah’s Witness, to deny coverage for blood transfusion for an employee. Why not, Justice Alito? We have a terrible, activist Supreme Court majority of 4 crazy men + a cipher who often plays along. Nuts.

John Donnelly


“Tobin Grant, a blogger for the Religious News Service, describes this as a win for religious liberty”

Religious liberty for BOSSES, over and against the religious liberty of their WORKERS (esp female workers—already the least paid/most vulnerable. An IUD—something Hobby Lobby objected to covering—would cost a woman earning the minimum wage a month’s salary!)

JC Fisher

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café