Sonia Sotomayor, Other Judges Swing Against ‘Hobby Lobby’ Corporate Religion, Which Proposes ‘Everything To Be Piecemeal’

The Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case is being considered a landmark case, as it deals with the deal with the Affordable Care Act and a two important themes: religious freedom and a woman's right to contraception. On Tuesday March 25, the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments of the case, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dominating the questioning.

The case disputes the following: The Affordable Care Act mandates that employees received health care that covers all forms of contraception at no cost by their employers but certain corporations (i.e. Hobby Lobby) argue that they should not be held responsible for such benefits Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) if it contradicts their belief. And in that, lies the problem. Does religious freedom or a woman's right to contraception hold more significance, or, do the two not have to be mutually exclusive?

Hobby Lobby (and Conestoga Wood Specialties of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius) argues that it has no objection covering its employees for contraception, but covering emergency contraceptives or IUDs is a violation of their “religious liberty.” In fact, Hobby Lobby argues that their "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception."

According to Brent Kendall of the Wall Street Journal, Hobby Lobby attorney Paul Clement was almost instantly questioned by Sotomayor about "corporate religion" and the consequences of not keeping the two separate. Sotomayor reportedly questioned Clement that if a corporation could use religion to prevent access to contraception, then could some corporations also not offer vaccinations or blood transfusions under the notion of faith?

Kagan then carried on Sotomayor's point by noting that many medical procedures are considered questionable by certain religions. Kagan argued, "Everything would be piecemeal; nothing would be uniform."

All that said and done, not all the justices are on the same page. Justice Anthony Kennedy, according to Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress, seems concerned with the precedence this will make for abortion being funded by corporations.