The Supreme Court will hear the case pitting Holly Hobby against the Affordable Care Act. The conservative Christian owners of Holly Hobby are fighting the ACA's requirement that all health care plans include contraception coverage.
what eye thynk: Basically, Holly Hobby is arguing that Mitt Romney was right in 2012 when he said "corporations are people too, my friend". HH wants the Court to grant it corporate "personhood" and with it all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including free speech.
It is not clear what happens to my right of free speech if this happens. Will my personhood be able to sue my employer's personhood in an attempt to force my beliefs on him? Or if my employer belongs to a sect that believes in prayer over medical care, can he deny my right to see a doctor at all? It's a silly argument, I know; but the thought that the Supreme Court might grant my employer the right to dictate what goes on in a space as personal as my doctor's office or as private as my bedroom would have been thought more than silly a short time ago.
And HH is not only arguing that corporations can have religious beliefs. They are asking the Supreme Court to allow them to dictate their own minutiae of religious sanctions.
HH wants to decide what types of birth control earn the "Holly Hobby Bible Seal of Approval" and what types are put on a forbidden list. HH says they are willing to offer coverage for condoms, diaphragms, sponges, some pills and sterilization surgery. They would not pay for IUDs or morning after type pills. Can HH show me where in the Bible it says diaphragms = good, IUDs = bad?
After the mess the Supreme Court made of political campaign funding with their Citizens United ruling, I can only hope they think long and hard about the ramifications of granting personhood status on any business--a status that would introduce a corporate voice into employees' family planning. Dear Supreme Court: Please, do not screw this up.
i tried to comment but it ate my post! So, I will try again:
ReplyDeleteI am old and easily confused but I was under the impression that said 'personhood' had already been granted to corporations.
And, if my wobbly old memory has any merit left to it, then the Supreme Court is apt to rule in favor of HH based entirely on precedence.
Hope to shit I am wrong.