Christopher C. Doll: Hobby Lobby’s argument disingenuous

March 27, 2014 

The owners of Hobby Lobby are seeking an exemption to the Affordable Care Act due to their religious beliefs. Their argument is disingenuous, would open a Pandora’s box of legal issues, and should be rejected by the Supreme Court.

First, there is a legal distinction between a for-profit corporation and its shareholders. Shareholders benefit by being insulated from the liabilities of the corporation. It is the corporate entity to which the ACA applies. However, Hobby Lobby is asking the court to ascribe the religious beliefs of the shareholders to the corporation itself. It’s asking the court to grant it a double standard whereby it reaps all the benefits of incorporating, yet allow it to disregard the corporate veil when it suits its purposes.

Second, health insurance is compensation earned by the employee. An employer cannot instruct an employee how to spend their salary. And it’s not OK to dictate how other compensation is used.

And finally, the notion that Hobby Lobby is only opposed to certain contraceptives that act as abortifacients is a farcical argument, as no FDA-approved forms of birth control cause abortions.

CHRISTOPHER C. DOLL

Salida

Health care makes her fear retirement

Modesto Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service